Hornresp

Originally Posted by David McBean

While not wishing to put a dampener on your endeavours,

You havn't ;)

I suspect that what you are trying to do, cannot be done, unfortunately... :-(.

I think you might be right :( with the limited specs of the quoted driver anyway. Maybe with a bit more data with other drivers ? Anyway no harm in trying, or preventing the creative processes from flowing :) I myself have found, & noticed in others over the years, that often interesting & useful things etc can/do/have come from thinking out of the box, and/or laterally etc as well as logically, no matter how crazy etc it appears at the time ! The downside is it "can" attract negative comments etc from "some" people but it's wise to ignore them :p

Not sure that I understand :).

I was reffering to the eight character limitation in HR. But as you say,

don’t worry, as the rounded value of 2.08E-04 will be close enough.

That's good to know :)

Exactly - now you've got it :).

Better late than never ;)

Sometimes though, ignorance can be bliss :).

:D Yeah, sometimes ;)

Regards
 
Hi David, I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned any problems with this but the window for Particle Velocity appears around 2/3 size of the main Hornresp window and unresizable.

The graph and controls are partially obscured and I can't alter the window to properly see the results.

I'm running on XP SP3 at 1920x1080 if that's any help!
 
Hi David, I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned any problems with this but the window for Particle Velocity appears around 2/3 size of the main Hornresp window and unresizable.

The graph and controls are partially obscured and I can't alter the window to properly see the results.

I'm running on XP SP3 at 1920x1080 if that's any help!

Hi chucky12,

Thanks for the feedback - you are the first person to report this problem. The Particle Velocity form should display as shown in the attachment, and be just slightly smaller that the main Hornresp form. It cannot be resized.

I run XP also. I tried increasing my screen resolution to the maximum, but could not replicate the problem you are experiencing.

Do you still have the problem when you reduce your screen resolution?

Is the Particle Velocity form the only one that has the problem - is the Wavefront Simulator form okay, for example?

Would it be possible for you to post a screenprint of the incorrectly displayed form?

If anyone else has experienced a similar problem, could they please let me know.

Thanks and kind regards,

David
 

Attachments

  • Velocity.png
    Velocity.png
    21.3 KB · Views: 199
Is there any possibility to have the option of writing the values of S and L in the scientific notation as is for the Cms value too?

Hi witasso,

Because Hornresp area and length values cannot be less than 0.00 or greater than 99999.99, and because of the eight-character input limit, there is little to be gained by expressing the S and L values in scientific notation. Also, the number of significant figures would be unnecessarily reduced. For example, an area of 12345.67 sq cm would be automatically rounded to 1.23E+04 or 12300.00.

Furthermore, it would complicate matters when inter-working with the Loudspeaker Wizard tool.

Kind regards,

David
 
Hello David,

Too bad it cannot be done on S (and L) because one of the negative consequences is the impossibility to design a Le Cléac'h horn having an Fc lesser than 80Hz...

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h


Hi witasso,

Because Hornresp area and length values cannot be less than 0.00 or greater than 99999.99, and because of the eight-character input limit, there is little to be gained by expressing the S and L values in scientific notation. Also, the number of significant figures would be unnecessarily reduced. For example, an area of 12345.67 sq cm would be automatically rounded to 1.23E+04 or 12300.00.

Furthermore, it would complicate matters when inter-working with the Loudspeaker Wizard tool.

Kind regards,

David
 
Do you still have the problem when you reduce your screen resolution?

Is the Particle Velocity form the only one that has the problem - is the Wavefront Simulator form okay, for example?

Mine's fine, but FWIW, this happened to me with the impulse response screen way back when and uninstalling HR and DLing/installing it again solved the problem.

Nice to know I'm not the only one with a weird XP machine, even this fresh install on a different computer has its quirks, though not all the same as before............ [SP2, 1024x768]. FWIW, mine is an early multiple registered copy of XP rather than a retail single user copy.

GM
 
Re - Inputting TSP etc as scientific characters.

In ALL the hundreds & hundreds of drivers specs i've looked at over the years, i can't recall ANY manufacturer listing them in such terms ! So for people to then have to convert them to input into HR etc, is & would be IMO, an inconvience.

I do however take note of what Jmmlc said.

"If" at some point in the future, we could choose to input in either/or terms, then that would surely satisfy everybody :) I think i know what you're going to say though, & it begins with - It's not ......... ;)

Re - Particle Velocity

I'm using XP/SP2 :p & this is Exactly how it appears to me.
 

Attachments

  • pv.gif
    pv.gif
    14.4 KB · Views: 175
Hello David,

Too bad it cannot be done on S (and L) because one of the negative consequences is the impossibility to design a Le Cléac'h horn having an Fc lesser than 80Hz...

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h

Hi Jean-Michel,

I managed to get down to a cutoff frequency of 54 hertz using worst-case conditions of S1 = 0.01, T = 0.00 and Fta = 180.00 - see attached screenprint.

Similar to Vtc, the S2 limit could perhaps be increased to 999999.9. This would allow a minimum cutoff frequency of 18 Hz.

What do you think - would it be worth doing?

Kind regards,

David
 

Attachments

  • Limit.png
    Limit.png
    10.4 KB · Views: 200
Hello David,


Here in France there is several large Le Cléac'h bass horns ("stand" type) that I helped to calculate and design and which have cutoff frequency as low as 16Hz.

For sure it is very rare to have to design such low Fc bass horns but the question of the Hornresp inability to calculate Le Cléac'h horns having Fc lower than 80Hz and FTA > 180 degrees has been often mentionned to me.

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h


Hi Jean-Michel,

I managed to get down to a cutoff frequency of 54 hertz using worst-case conditions of S1 = 0.01, T = 0.00 and Fta = 180.00 - see attached screenprint.

Similar to Vtc, the S2 limit could perhaps be increased to 999999.9. This would allow a minimum cutoff frequency of 18 Hz.

What do you think - would it be worth doing?

Kind regards,

David
 
Here here!

I to would appreciate the ability to knock off a couple big boy LeCleach horns. I used Jean-Michels spreadsheet but Hornresp is so much more fun to play with. Is the math and or changes really that difficult or am I missing something?

Update on Particle velocity.

I have received a wonderful anemometer that seems to be quite accurate so with that being the case I'm working on a few designs of various types and sizes that I will put to the test. It would be oh so nice if all adds up. I have a horn design that I'm hoping will be a pocket rocket. As in just small enough to work without to much turbulence.

Back to the laboratory Igor...... Yess Master yes Master!
 
Hi Hornresp experts,

I have a question.

How do I even out the response in the calculation below? I have tried altering all the different parameters that I know of(which isnt that many to be honest). I understand that making a midbass horn using a 15" might be tricky. Is this a typical response in 15" midbass horns? Will the peaks/lows be heard in real life? If I change to 1 x pi the response is flatter but the horn contour will be round so i guess 2 x pi will be more correct.

416.jpg


Anyone knows?

Regards
Marcus
 
Hi, i'm not an HR expert :p but the fr +/- 1-1/2 dB response you've achieved between 90Hz - 600Hz is nothing to be ashamed of, in fact just the opposite ;) A lot of non horns are worse than that ! Those peaks you speak of won't be heard IMO, nor will the dips :)

As you're aware, 15's don't usually work effectively as high as smaller diameter drivers, but some are better than others.

Also it depends what f's you want to Xover at, both high & low ?
 

Attachments

  • 15a.gif
    15a.gif
    18.7 KB · Views: 182
Zero D,

Thank you for your reply!

I will be crossing att 100Hz(B&C TH) and 500Hz(320Hz trac jbl 2441). The 416 drivers I have where previously used in an Altec Valencia crossed at 800Hz, so hopefully that wont be a problem. I have read multiple times though that you are suppose to have a flat response one octave over the cutoff frequency. There arent very much over 500Hz on the graph as far as I can tell.

Another question... Are you suppose to use 2 x pi when simulating round midbass horns? Arent they are dangerously close to free space? They are quite close to the ground but not very close to the wall behind the speaker.

Regards
Marcus
 
@ mostlydiy


I will be crossing att 100Hz(B&C TH) and 500Hz(320Hz trac jbl 2441). The 416 drivers I have where previously used in an Altec Valencia crossed at 800Hz, so hopefully that wont be a problem.

OK

I have read multiple times though that you are suppose to have a flat response one octave over the cutoff frequency.

And below too, ideally that is. But you'd be amazed at how well systems "can" actually sound in spite of that :) Will you be using an Active Xover ? If so you, depending on which one, you should be able to select different slopes etc for each bandwith, to better integrate the Xover points etc. Also you will be able to match the SPL's for each.

I would experiment with the Sliders in HR & see how a wider bandwith design shapes up. I guess the SPL will reduce, but this can be compensated for in an Active system :)

Another question... Are you suppose to use 2 x pi when simulating round midbass horns? Arent they are dangerously close to free space? They are quite close to the ground but not very close to the wall behind the speaker.

The good thing is, there's NO law that forces you to do something a particular way :D If it works, it works ;)
 
Zero D,

As a matter of fact I have been thinking of taking the easy way and buy myself an active crossover to begin with. Configure the system and try different levels and crossover points and slops. It seems so much easier than configure passive components. I might possibly change to passive crossovers in the higher registers later on, when Ive come up with a system that I like. Another positive feature with an active Xover is that you could easily adjust the sound for different inputs and recording qualities which is a plus. I have a feeling though that the sound suffers a little with an active Xover. I havnt reasearched the active Xover market. You have any recommendations? (4 way i guess)

Regards