Hornresp - Page 171 - 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 21st February 2011, 08:07 AM   #1701
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf View Post
Thank you for your continual work and patience.
Thanks Jeremy :-).

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2011, 08:44 AM   #1702
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by David McBean View Post
You might like to check out some of the Hornresp tutorials now available on the Web
Hi arnakke,

A possible starting point:

Hornresp Tutorial

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2011, 08:59 AM   #1703
Jmmlc is offline Jmmlc  France
R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Hello Helmuth,

You asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmuth View Post
David I have a question can I simulate a 1"or 2" horn without knowing the TS-parameters.

My answer will differ somewhat of David's one (sorry David).

You can simulate a 1" or a 2" horn without knowing the Thiele and Small parameters, introducing Eg = 0 (in place of the normal value Eg = 2,83).

Doing this the driver will be considered as a "constant velocity source". This feature is very interesting when designing new horns without knowing the Thiele and Small parameters. For sure the results will be better than with a real driver, specially in the HF (because moving mass = 0)

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 06:37 AM   #1704
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmmlc View Post
My answer will differ somewhat of David's one.
Hi Jean-Michel,

Many thanks. I had completely forgotten about the driver diaphragm constant velocity option, included in Hornresp at your suggestion :-).

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2011, 07:16 PM   #1705
Helmuth is offline Helmuth  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Helmuth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Winterswijk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmmlc View Post
Hello Helmuth,

You asked:




My answer will differ somewhat of David's one (sorry David).

You can simulate a 1" or a 2" horn without knowing the Thiele and Small parameters, introducing Eg = 0 (in place of the normal value Eg = 2,83).

Doing this the driver will be considered as a "constant velocity source". This feature is very interesting when designing new horns without knowing the Thiele and Small parameters. For sure the results will be better than with a real driver, specially in the HF (because moving mass = 0)

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Thanks for the creative tip Jean Michel.
__________________
( (( KUGELWELLE )) )
recent projects :OB-mk1 /fatboy / monitor-xl / Horn-AM / dappolito / td124-mk1-rb301 / Hybrid-pse / Vfet
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2011, 06:47 AM   #1706
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Hello David and Jean-Michel,

In the JMLC_horn_v2 spreadsheet I get the impression that the sides of a square horn(4petals) are radius*2 of the round(at the same length in the horn).

Voight recommends the same in his patent.

Ie this is a area difference of a factor ca 1,27 relative round.

Seems like the area is the same whatever shape in Hornresp.

Have I gotten it all wrong? Anyway, pros and cons of the two ways of doing it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2011, 07:59 AM   #1707
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by revintage View Post
In the JMLC_horn_v2 spreadsheet I get the impression that the sides of a square horn(4petals) are radius*2 of the round(at the same length in the horn).
Seems like the area is the same whatever shape in Hornresp.
Anyway, pros and cons of the two ways of doing it?
Hi Lars,

The approach taken in Hornresp for square / rectangular horns is very simple. Assuming the plane cross-sectional area at axial length X is given by AREA, then Width at X = AREA / (Height at X).

It is quite some time since I last looked at Jean-Michel's spreadsheet, but I seem to recall that it takes into account the area of the curved wavefront when determining the required rectangular cross-section at a given axial length. Jean-Michel's approach would be more correct theoretically. I'm not sure how much of practical difference it makes though. He may care to comment further.

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2011, 08:03 AM   #1708
Jmmlc is offline Jmmlc  France
R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Hello Revintage,

This question is a bit off topic here. Anyway I hope David will not feel offended if I reply here.

If you use a number of petals of 4, both the mouth and the throat are square. A square possess an area 1.2372 times larger than the inscribed circle.

As square drivers are pretty rare, if you want to use a circular driver you'll have to use an adpatator from round to circle between the driver and the horn.

I once wrote an Excel spreadsheet to calulate adptatators of the desired frequency from circle to retcangular. Infortunately it is in French, see here attached the excel spreadsheet in txt format).

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Attached Files
File Type: zip amorce_rect.zip (86.5 KB, 20 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2011, 08:44 AM   #1709
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Hello David and Jean-Michel,

I am aware that the 4 petal horn is square from start to end. I am sure you menat 1,2734? Still the thing making me wonder is that the "4-petal" from the spreadsheet does not equal a square LeCleach in Hornresp.

The question came up as I thought of using a cone driver to a midbasshorn that should be square all the way.

Just for fun this is from Voigts patent 1927:

"In the case of a square horn, the tangent to the corners is longer than that to the middle of the sides and a compromise is unavoidable. I prefer to make the section correspond to the tractrix. The shortest tangent is then correct, but the area is 4/Pi=1,27 times that of the corresponding tractrix.
If the area is made equal to the corresponding tractrix, the tangent at the sides will be short, a defect which is partly compensated for by the excess length of the tangent to the corners."

About the OT I too did a round to square spreadsheet a few years ago intended for tractrix. Must check to see if mine where made good enough...
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd February 2011, 09:06 AM   #1710
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by revintage View Post
I am sure you menat 1,2734?
Hi Lars,

I think Jean-Michel actually meant to say 1,2732 (4 / Pi accurate to 4 decimal places), but managed to transpose the 7 and 3 :-).

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net

Last edited by David McBean; 23rd February 2011 at 09:08 AM.
  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 Class FlipC Subwoofers 8 3rd November 2008 07:23 PM
Some questions about hornresp brsanko Full Range 4 18th October 2008 10:36 PM
Hornresp help / JX150 316a Multi-Way 0 11th February 2004 04:56 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 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