Hornresp - New Website Address - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th October 2007, 07:19 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by jamikl
Thanks for the great programme David, and for keeping on with it. I appreciate the acvice about the newer version of 17.
jamikl
Thanks jamikl, no problems.

I have already released yet another very minor update - I just can't resist "tweaking" things to make them better :-).

Product Number 1700-071027 refers.

Kind regards,

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2007, 08:00 AM   #12
simon5 is offline simon5  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Québec, Québec
Congratulations for your nice work !

I especially like that Hornresp support rear vented chambers, I was usually using an old version that didn't support it. We can now create very interesting designs.

I was thinking about an exotic design. You use a passive radiator instead of a port. You could then hornload the passive radiator, right ?

Keep up the good work !
__________________
DIYaudio for President !
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2007, 07:46 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by simon5
Congratulations for your nice work !

I especially like that Hornresp support rear vented chambers, I was usually using an old version that didn't support it. We can now create very interesting designs.

I was thinking about an exotic design. You use a passive radiator instead of a port. You could then hornload the passive radiator, right ?

Keep up the good work !
Thanks simon5. I thought about including a passive radiator option some time ago, but ultimately decided against it. One problem would have been finding space on the input screen for the necessary additional parameter values :-).

Kind regards,

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2007, 03:34 AM   #14
simon5 is offline simon5  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Québec, Québec
What do you think about horn loading the passive radiator ?

By the way, it's true that your interface is a bit crowded, but it's perfect that way!

You could find space easily by bumping it to 800x600 or 1024x768. Most of us are into new technology so I seriously doubt anyone here is still on 640x480.

On the other hand, congratulations for keeping backward compatibility, it must be harder and harder.
__________________
DIYaudio for President !
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2007, 05:05 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Hi simon5,


Quote:
What do you think about horn loading the passive radiator ?
I am guessing that it would perform much the same as a horn loaded port having a similar piston area - provided that the mass of the passive radiator diaphragm and the resistance and compliance of the suspension were not overly significant.

The only advantage that I can see in using a passive radiator rather than a simple port, is that particle velocity could possibly be better controlled and more uniform. Not sure what this would mean subjectively, though - I have no practical experience with such designs.


Quote:
By the way, it's true that your interface is a bit crowded, but it's perfect that way!

You could find space easily by bumping it to 800x600 or 1024x768. Most of us are into new technology so I seriously doubt anyone here is still on 640x480.
For the sake of consistency, I wanted the screen and hardcopy input parameter layouts to look the same. The hardcopy printout was restricted to 80 characters in width for the paper size, orientation and font that I wished to use. This defined the dimensions of the input parameters window. On the positive side, the chosen window size has proven to be very convenient for screenprints :-).


Quote:
On the other hand, congratulations for keeping backward compatibility, it must be harder and harder.
Thanks - it’s not easy :-).

Kind regards,

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2007, 02:04 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Send a message via AIM to ConExp Send a message via MSN to ConExp Send a message via Yahoo to ConExp
Default Question for David

I am using your Hornresp for long time (and enjoy it).
For back horns the combined response is very useful.

The combined response changed with version and now (with ver 17) I am getting a different response than in the past (actually the difference appears in earlier version, I don’t remember which).

Could you clarify what changed with version?

Thanks,
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 03:59 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Default Re: Question for David

Quote:
Originally posted by ConExp
The combined response changed with version and now (with ver 17) I am getting a different response than in the past (actually the difference appears in earlier version, I don’t remember which).

Could you clarify what changed with version?
Hi ConExp,

The Combined Response tool was changed at Version 16.00. I found that techniques developed for the tapped horn model could also be applied to the combined response model. Predictions using Version 16.00 or later should be more accurate.

Kind regards,

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 10:40 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
cowanaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
G'day David

I'll echo the sentiments of the others and give you a big thumbs up for your Hornresponse program. I've designed and built more than a dozen horns with it and my predictions come out very close to reality. I did another tapped horn a few weeks back and the model was within +/-1dB of the measured response across the pass band. You can't get much better than that!

If you're scratching around looking for things to change in Version 20.00, I have a few ideas.

Selectable frequency limits on the plotting screen would be great. Plotting a bass horn out to 20KHz is just throwing away detail in the passband.

Going for a higher resolution and combining the input screen with the plot could also be helpful. This would make parameter changes quicker through the iteration of a design.

Thanks again for an excellent product!

William Cowan
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2007, 07:17 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Hi William,


Quote:
I'll echo the sentiments of the others and give you a big thumbs up for your Hornresponse program. I've designed and built more than a dozen horns with it and my predictions come out very close to reality. I did another tapped horn a few weeks back and the model was within +/-1dB of the measured response across the pass band. You can't get much better than that!
Thanks for the kind words and for the feedback - I am really quite surprised at how well the predictions compare to your measured results :-).


Quote:
If you're scratching around looking for things to change in Version 20.00, I have a few ideas.

Selectable frequency limits on the plotting screen would be great. Plotting a bass horn out to 20KHz is just throwing away detail in the passband.

Going for a higher resolution and combining the input screen with the plot could also be helpful. This would make parameter changes quicker through the iteration of a design.
Thanks for the suggestions.

So far I have resisted the temptation to make the frequency range selectable - it would complicate things for me a bit, and in principle I am trying to keep the outputs as simple and as consistent as possible. Chart results can of course already be exported to Excel and manipulated there if necessary, and sampling can be done at 1 hertz increments to check specific points of interest if required.

Combining the input and chart screens would require major changes to the structure and operation of the program - something that I am not in a position to undertake at the moment, unfortunately.


Quote:
Thanks again for an excellent product!
You’re welcome :-).

Kind regards,

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2008, 05:46 PM   #20
tb46 is offline tb46  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Hi David,

Thanks for your great program, I know it is repetitive, but I’d like to join the ranks of those who have expressed their thanks for a job very well done. For lots of reasons I have not been able to build anything designed with Hornresp, but I find it fun and interesting to model different speakers and enclosures, and am still learning how to use your wonderful program. Please, keep it up.

As to William Cowan’s idea list for Version 20.00 (:-)): I wonder how difficult it would be to add a series inductor (with inductive and resistive components) to the speaker parameter list (e.g.: in the background of the Le field)?

Bye for now, Thanks
Oliver.
__________________
Oliver
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hornresp David McBean Subwoofers 4865 14th September 2014 06:38 PM
Some questions about hornresp brsanko Full Range 4 18th October 2008 09:36 PM
Tapped and Hornresp help! DrWoofer.com Subwoofers 10 29th April 2008 03:02 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2