Names have meaning.
AFAIK the term "cone correction" was coined on this forum, and it refers to a very specific defined process with a very specific purpose with very specific benefits and advantages.
NAME - cone correction
DESCRIPTION - having some type of restriction DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the cone for the purpose of creating a more constantly expanding flare (ie - no big chamber or expansion in the line where the driver taps in)
- this can be done in a symmetrical fashion purely to preserve the constant line expansion or it can be unsymmetrical in an attempt to equalize the unsymmetrical forces on the cone in addition to creating a more constantly expanding flare
- whether symmetrical or unsymmetrical the restriction HAS TO BE DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the cone or it cannot satisfy either of these goals, it can't create a more constantly expanding flare and it cannot equalize the unsymmetrical forces on the cone - this has nothing to do with wavelengths
PURPOSE - benefits and advantages have been subjectively described as higher power handling, better sound, stronger output at Fb, less distortion, and probably more that I'm forgetting or not aware of
A patent application is a good way to describe a process, and if this "cone correction" idea has any merit it probably will be subject to a patent application at some point. The main things in a patent application are NAME, DESCRIPTION, and PURPOSE (benefits, advantages). Without these three things you don't have a concept.
In these last few posts, you have used the NAME (cone correction) but you have now significantly redefined the DEFINITION so that it no longer has to be in front of the cone, and you are now also suggesting that it also means basket correction in relation to DSL's stub. Additionally, you are suggesting that the PURPOSE (all the advantages that have been claimed) are not important and we can talk about the process without acknowledging the claimed purpose.
This term has been named, defined, and specific purpose has been attributed to it.
Now you are attempting to use the name stripped of it's definition and purpose. To what end I have no idea, but I don't agree with much of this.
I don't think "cone correction" does much of anything except what sims say it does, and I don't think DSL's stub has anything to do with "cone correction" as defined on this forum in hundreds of posts over the last couple of years.
Last edited:
LOL, LOL, Ok I'll tell you what - seeing that you've gone to ALL that trouble to write that, let's call it YOUR definition of "cone correction". Feel free to start your own thread and then rail against it.
Seeing that this is MY thread however, I think I'll stick to using and discussing MY definition of it. If you don't like that, feel free to leave and start a discussion on the subject using YOUR definition. I'll stick to my own, thanks.
First of all, at no time did I refer to correcting for the volume of the basket at S1 as "cone correction". However, the volume of the driver's basket MUST be taken into consideration if it is intruding into a small space, like S1-S2. f you actually spent at more time designing systems instead of misreading other people's posts to your benefit, you'd know that. See post #5600 in the HornResp thread for a note from the guy who actually wrote HornResp on that very subject.
Secondly, treating two drivers as one unit if they are close enough together (the same distance vs. wavelength thing) is a common approach in simulating designs. Again, of you spend less time misreading people's posts and more time designing systems, you'd know that.
YOUR definition of cone correction.
Let's stick to using MY definition on MY thread, thanks
. Feel free to start your own thread if you want to use YOUR definition.I don't have a personal definition. Several hundred previous posts about "cone correction" that all refer to the same name, definition and purpose defined the concept.
Of course the basket volume needs to be accounted for if you want an accurate sim, I've been telling you that wrt 115/118 sim for the last couple of months and you've been telling me the basket and grill are not important, so now the tables have turned I guess, now that it suits your purposes. You said "Another thing you need to consider when looking at your specific example is that the volume displaced by the driver's basket and cone needs to be taken into consideration (it's *significantly* greater than the volume contained within the driver's cone), and could perhaps explain why there's that expansion at S1, to compensate for that volume being taken up by the driver's basket. The context was that you were trying to explain how DSL's stub could be considered "cone correction".
I know very well about using the midpoint between drivers as the virtual center. But with CONE CORRECTION, the correction has to be in the middle of the cone to create a more constantly expanding flare and/or to provide a more symmetrical load on the driver. These are the ONLY TWO things that cone correction was ever meant to do, and these things are impossible if you put the correction between two cones. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with distance and wavelength.
As David McBean noted in the Hornresp thread, your stream of consciousness on this topic in this thread and the other one is going in several different directions.
Only #2 is actually "cone correction.
And since then you've gone on to completely redefine the entire concept, the only reason for this seems to be so that you can include DSL's completely different "stub" designs in your "cone correction" category.
Since you've now redefined "cone correction" to include just about anything going on anywhere near the horn throat (since the wavelength is long), and you seem intent on perpetuating the myth that "cone correction" actually does anything without any proof at all except a single measurement that doesn't necessarily mean anything, and since this is your thread as you pointed out, I guess I'll leave you to it. I really don't think I have anything left to add to this mess.
Of course the basket volume needs to be accounted for if you want an accurate sim, I've been telling you that wrt 115/118 sim for the last couple of months and you've been telling me the basket and grill are not important, so now the tables have turned I guess, now that it suits your purposes. You said "Another thing you need to consider when looking at your specific example is that the volume displaced by the driver's basket and cone needs to be taken into consideration (it's *significantly* greater than the volume contained within the driver's cone), and could perhaps explain why there's that expansion at S1, to compensate for that volume being taken up by the driver's basket. The context was that you were trying to explain how DSL's stub could be considered "cone correction".
I know very well about using the midpoint between drivers as the virtual center. But with CONE CORRECTION, the correction has to be in the middle of the cone to create a more constantly expanding flare and/or to provide a more symmetrical load on the driver. These are the ONLY TWO things that cone correction was ever meant to do, and these things are impossible if you put the correction between two cones. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with distance and wavelength.
As David McBean noted in the Hornresp thread, your stream of consciousness on this topic in this thread and the other one is going in several different directions.
Only #2 is actually "cone correction.
And since then you've gone on to completely redefine the entire concept, the only reason for this seems to be so that you can include DSL's completely different "stub" designs in your "cone correction" category.
Since you've now redefined "cone correction" to include just about anything going on anywhere near the horn throat (since the wavelength is long), and you seem intent on perpetuating the myth that "cone correction" actually does anything without any proof at all except a single measurement that doesn't necessarily mean anything, and since this is your thread as you pointed out, I guess I'll leave you to it. I really don't think I have anything left to add to this mess.
Did you actually read and understand David McBean's post on that very subject?? For most cases, the basket makes little difference IF IT IS SITTING AT THE MOUTH END OF THE TH. It's right there in the very same post I referred you to in his thread, he even provided a worked example to show this, and you're still going on about that nonsense?
The tables have not turned - you are just either willfully misinterpreting what I wrote, or not intelligent enough to understand the concepts being discussed.
Let me explain it as simply as I can for you: if the volume of the object is small compared to the section of the TH it's setting in, then the impact is likely to be minor, and can be ignored for simulation purposes. If it is large, then the impact is likely to be not minor and it needs to be included in the sim. Now, in the case of a TH sim, which section is likely to have the smallest volume - S1-S2, or S4-S5? In which section is the basket of the driver going to have the greatest impact if it's located in that section? Now, is that simple enough for you?
Total rubbish. I was indicating to you that in the case of the EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDED, the driver's obstruction of the TH needs to be taken into consideration AS WELL, as it was sitting in the volume at S1. At no time I referred to it as "cone correction". In fact, if you read the entirety of what I wrote, you'd see that I subsequently suggested adjusting S1 to remove the compensation for the basket's volume AND THEN adjusting S2 to remove the cone correction, to see what the results look like. But once again you took things out of context and subsequently jump to incorrect conclusions about what it is that I said.
Again, that's YOUR definition of cone correction, not mine. If you want to discuss things in the context of YOUR definition, feel free to start your own thread on the subject.
No loss as far as I'm concerned. Seriously you really haven't added anything of value at all to this thread up to this point.
As I am the person who created the method, and name for 'Cone Correction'
I have stated in this thread what it implies to me, and I have had the good grace to only say it once, and not dilute a interesting thread with endless repetition.
The rest just sounds like total bull.
I was ready to leave this alone but if you are going to call me stupid and get really hostile I'm just going to repeat what I've said in simpler terms.
His working example showed a broadband difference of about 2 db or so. If that's "little difference" to you, it shows you are not concerned about accurate simulations in the least.
Again, I DON'T HAVE A PERSONAL DEFINITION OF CONE CORRECTION.
Xoc1 said he invented it and named it, and this is what he said about it.
It sounds a lot like he was just trying to fill in the hole left by the cone to make the cross sectional area of the line more constant. This is further reflected in a couple hundred other posts about this topic.
If the concept is all about filling in a hole, you can't achieve that by placing a restriction at a totally different point in the line regardless of the wavelengths involved. In other words, DSL's stub is NOT cone correction.
As far as I'm concerned you are doing a great disservice to the community by confusing a lot of different concepts and redefining terms to meet your own needs.
This started out as a promising study but it's getting ridiculous.
His working example showed a broadband difference of about 2 db or so. If that's "little difference" to you, it shows you are not concerned about accurate simulations in the least.
Again, I DON'T HAVE A PERSONAL DEFINITION OF CONE CORRECTION.
Xoc1 said he invented it and named it, and this is what he said about it.
It sounds a lot like he was just trying to fill in the hole left by the cone to make the cross sectional area of the line more constant. This is further reflected in a couple hundred other posts about this topic.
If the concept is all about filling in a hole, you can't achieve that by placing a restriction at a totally different point in the line regardless of the wavelengths involved. In other words, DSL's stub is NOT cone correction.
As far as I'm concerned you are doing a great disservice to the community by confusing a lot of different concepts and redefining terms to meet your own needs.
This started out as a promising study but it's getting ridiculous.
Not sure what sound like bull to you, since you named the concept, described the concept and stated the purpose of the concept. The concept is filling in the cone hole, which I've been saying all along. Brian is the one redefining it, so where is the bull in my posts?
It was an extreme-case scenario where the driver's basket is blocking half of the horn's mouth!! David was using an extreme example to demonstrate the possible impact in such a situation, but it seems that went *way* over your head. You consistently continue to show that you really don't grasp the concept at all of how to effectively use sims for design work, in particular identifying what's important to include, and what need not be included due to minor impact on the results.
Then please like you previously promised. Your input will not be missed.
It wasn't that extreme. In a lot of cases the driver takes up close to 1/2 the mouth. The 118 for example, with it's 50 percent closed grill, the blocks of wood the grill is fastened to, the driver basket and the stub of wood located at the final turn in the horn path represent far more than 50 percent blockage. The blockages are staggered between the last bend and the mouth exit but their combined effect is huge, and will be very evident in a sim and measurement.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, my sims are extremely accurate and match measurements, so what concepts am I not grasping? Accurate sims need EVERYTHING included, leaving stuff out is never ideal when accuracy is the goal. I'm well aware of which things cause large or small impact, but EVERYTHING affects accuracy to some degree.
Stop implying I'm stupid, being overtly hostile to me and arguing dumb points and I'll leave.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, my sims are extremely accurate and match measurements, so what concepts am I not grasping? Accurate sims need EVERYTHING included, leaving stuff out is never ideal when accuracy is the goal. I'm well aware of which things cause large or small impact, but EVERYTHING affects accuracy to some degree.
Stop implying I'm stupid, being overtly hostile to me and arguing dumb points and I'll leave.
Last edited:
True in a lot of cases, but not true in a lot of others. In the case of the 118 the 50 percent closed grill ALONE is a 50 percent blockage even without the wood grill holder, the driver, and the stub in the last bend.
Here's one, not quite 50 percent because the horn is so wide, but the driver is actually deeper than the horn, the magnet is sticking out past the mouth, there's considerable blockage here, easily enough to cause problems in a sim or measurement if not accounted for. This is not a unique case, there's plenty like this. And some of them have grills too, most grills are not more than 50 percent open.
Here's one, not quite 50 percent because the horn is so wide, but the driver is actually deeper than the horn, the magnet is sticking out past the mouth, there's considerable blockage here, easily enough to cause problems in a sim or measurement if not accounted for. This is not a unique case, there's plenty like this. And some of them have grills too, most grills are not more than 50 percent open.
Last edited:
Ok, let's put it this way, unless you have done tests to prove that ridiculous claim, then I'm going to treat it as what I believe it is - ridiculous. FWIW, I've done my own tests on the effect of blockage in the mouth of a TH and shared them with you previously (this is obviously not the first time we've engaged in this discussion), but you're conveniently choosing to ignore the results, because they do not support your point of view.
Oh, have a read of this concerning grills and their effect on subwoofer performance - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/214061-quantifying-metal-grill-effect-sound-3.html
Here's one, not quite 50 percent because the horn is so wide, but the driver is actually deeper than the horn, the magnet is sticking out past the mouth, there's considerable blockage here, easily enough to cause problems in a sim or measurement if not accounted for. This is not a unique case, there's plenty like this. And some of them have grills too, most grills are not more than 50 percent open.
The only thing that shows me is that you still have issues concerning how to translate a built system to an accurate sim of what would impact the build's performance.
The thread you just linked to involves putting a metal grill over a driver cone in a sealed or ported box which is EXTREMELY different than putting a 50 percent closed grill over the mouth of a horn. Anytime you block 50 percent of a port or horn mouth the results are going to be dramatically different than if you didn't block it, as McBean's example very clearly shows. Putting a 50 percent closed grill in front of a cone in a sealed or ported box isn't going to do much of anything, in front of a port or a horn mouth it's going to have huge consequences.
Not sure which part you think is ridiculous - the effect of 50 percent blockage or the fact that most grills are at least 50 percent blockage. If the former, refer back to McBean's sim, if the latter, just look up metal perforated grill material.
Again, my sims are extremely accurate and match measurements very well, I've shown this dozens of times on this forum by simulating systems and comparing to measurements.
Not sure which part you think is ridiculous - the effect of 50 percent blockage or the fact that most grills are at least 50 percent blockage. If the former, refer back to McBean's sim, if the latter, just look up metal perforated grill material.
Again, my sims are extremely accurate and match measurements very well, I've shown this dozens of times on this forum by simulating systems and comparing to measurements.
Great, so show us where your measurements have shown that putting a grille in front of a tapped horn has "huge consequences".
Until then, I'll consider it as a ridiculous claim.
Blocking 50 percent of the horn path (or a port) will cause changes. This is exceedingly obvious. The consequences are not necessarily a bad thing (lowered tuning, different FR) but there WILL be changes. Again, refer back to McBean's simulation of a 50 percent blockage.
Your own dogfood experiment should be all you need to see wrt to restrictions ANYWHERE in the line causing changes.
The 118 has a 50 percent closed grill, blocks of wood to hold the grill in place restricting the grill area further, a huge driver in the horn path, and a stub at the last corner restricting the path probably a few hundred sq cm. All of that in the last part of the horn. Refusing to accept that all those restrictions have any effect is not gaining you any integrity points.
Do a sim and find out how much these restrictions change things. I've mentioned Akabak a few times, I've already done these experiments in the past (although not with the 118). I'm not sure if you are just being willfully negligent or don't know how to use Akabak, but these things do matter. Quite a bit in fact.
Your own dogfood experiment should be all you need to see wrt to restrictions ANYWHERE in the line causing changes.
The 118 has a 50 percent closed grill, blocks of wood to hold the grill in place restricting the grill area further, a huge driver in the horn path, and a stub at the last corner restricting the path probably a few hundred sq cm. All of that in the last part of the horn. Refusing to accept that all those restrictions have any effect is not gaining you any integrity points.
Do a sim and find out how much these restrictions change things. I've mentioned Akabak a few times, I've already done these experiments in the past (although not with the 118). I'm not sure if you are just being willfully negligent or don't know how to use Akabak, but these things do matter. Quite a bit in fact.
Again, show your measurements that back up the claim that metal grills in front of THs have "huge consequences" as you've suggested. Where are they, or are you engaging in the same type of baseless handwaving that you're accusing the supporters of "cone correction" of doing?
Refusing to provide any measurements that back up your claims is not gaining YOU any integrity points, LOL.
(BTW - I'll leave you to work out for yourself why you CANNOT use McBean's example sim as "proof" that a grill at the mouth will have "huge consequences". Until then, I'll take it as a sign that you really don't know how to translate a sim to reality, or vice-versa).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.