Read what it actually says. It does not say "The parabolic horn is a rectangular horn with two parallel sides, the two other sides expanding linearly", it says "The parabolic horn is a true 1P horn if it is rectangular with two parallel sides, the two other sides expanding linearly". And the concept of true 1P horns is a different issue that what we are talking about here, and applies mainly to directivity controlling devices (i.e. at HF, not for LF/subwoofers). Also note that it is only the 1P part that depends on the geometry, if it is a parabolic horn or not depends only on how the area changes along the horn.
I get that you want people to model what they build what the model, but that is a different issue from how horn profiles are defined in the equations that are used to simulate them.
I get that you want people to model what they build what the model, but that is a different issue from how horn profiles are defined in the equations that are used to simulate them.
The parabolic horn was never the issue, so that is not the case that you need to rest.
You categorically stated in Post #14,663 that a conical horn has all straight expanding sides (no parallel sides) and that an exponential horn has all curved expanding sides (no parallel sides). This is not necessarily the case, as was clearly demonstrated in examples I posted.
Incidentally, you may be interested to know that a rectangular parabolic horn does not need to have two parallel sides provided that the area expansion remains linear, which it does in the following example.
Not necessarily, if it is a corner horn for example.
If "The parabolic horn is a true 1P horn if it is rectangular with two parallel sides, the two other sides expanding linearly" does not describe what 99% of the people in this thread build, then what does?
Like I said before, a parabolic horn can have an exponential expansion with "the 2 other sides expanding linearly." That scenario does not make the enclosure exponential. ALL sides have to expand in conical and exponential horns. They cannot have parallel walls to perform as efficiently as they do.
We see that situation in everyday life. Other than subwoofer enclosures, how often do we see parabolic horn enclosures? 99% of the time, we see horns with ALL sides expanding from brass instruments to intake (filter, tube, or restricter for balance of PERFORMANCE), megaphone exhaust, bull horns, cheerleader horns, etc.
Do you think those items would move air better with 2 parallel sides???
Interesting, the article only associates 2 parallel sides with parabolic horns.
Yet, ALL other horn profiles are referred to as tubular.
If we are to assume the tubes in the article are circular, then ALL other horn types have ALL EXPANDING SIDES.
Yet, ALL other horn profiles are referred to as tubular.
If we are to assume the tubes in the article are circular, then ALL other horn types have ALL EXPANDING SIDES.
Could you please stop with this repeated arbitrary claim?
And are you aware that this thread is about a simulation tool (not about building)?
Edit: Sorry to sound rude, but I just don't understand you repeated critique of a tool that no one is forcing you to use.
Last edited:
Let me rephrase that question since this is a SUBwoofer thread.
How many SUBwoofer enclosures have YOU BUILT with ALL EXPANDING SIDES?
How many SUBwoofer enclosures have YOU BUILT with ALL EXPANDING SIDES?
How is that important for a simulation software program?
Any simulation software program should be sound and work well on a theoretical level as well.
If people practically use it or not isn't relevant at all.
Any simulation software program should be sound and work well on a theoretical level as well.
If people practically use it or not isn't relevant at all.
Time to stop beating a dead Horse. Move on. You've been officially smacked down by the Software engineer and a guy that studied his brains out on Horns! And wrote a damn good book too!
Including the parabolic horn, see figure 2, which shows a circular parabolic horn.
The parallel sides is only mentioned in reference to the 1P horn concept, which relates to what equations can be used to model the horn, and their range of validity.
Everyone, I'm sorry to adding pointless arguments to a discussion that I think has been settled for most of the readers. I just don't like it when people try to argue with me by reading things into my papers that just isn't there.
https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/232459-klipsch-k402-replica-build/
How many people on this SUBwoofer thread BUILT a 30hz version of this?
How many people on this SUBwoofer thread BUILT a 30hz version of this?
I think it's time to ask for the thread to be cleaned up. Moderators please?
Don't know or don't care. I did not model the T-TQWT as a CON or EXP enclosure. I KNEW I was building a 2 parallel sided enclosure. I also was not looking for maximum performance. I chose low and small from Hofmann's Iron Law, hence the negative flare design.
Why, cause I'm providing facts and going against the establishment?
If an 1 dimensional horn = 2 parallel walls (parabolic), 2 dimensional horn = conical horn, and 3 dimensional horn = exponential horn, then why are the horn articles I've been reading referencing multiple dimensions when discussing conical and exponential horns?
If 2 parallel sides did not have an affect on enclosure performance, then Bjorno had no reason to mention 2 parallel sides in his horn article.
HOW the enclosure is BUILT is more important than the modeled flare rate. I already stated a parabolic horn can have an exponential expansion. It's still not an exponential horn because all 4 sides are NOT expanding together. That is why you should model what you actually BUILD.