You’re not even measuring or experimenting with the most intersting things about these designs whilst arguing the most pointless details?
So you are saying modeling a pyramidal enclosure and then building a 2 parallel sided enclosure is pointless?
I agree that all enclosures should be measured against their model. I do have REW loaded on my laptop. I'm too lazy to use it. I'm just happy with using a few test CD's. If they sound good, I'm straight.
You know what's worse, I have a miniDSP with remote and never took it out its box. I plan on using on my next F150. I might not install it even then. Why have an extra product in the signal chain that could draw noise. It also means extra cables and wires to install. I like simple electronics and complicated SUBwoofer enclosures. Typical basshead.
However, don't expect a built 2 parallel sided enclosure to measure like its pyramidal model.
I don’t understand if you dont even notice/dsp/xo away from the 3 x 1/4 wave resonace in your own subwoofers?
why are you arguing how to describe area/length profiles which move the pressure node/antinode of that freq around for offseting the driver to positions that prevent it from being excited ? or match up parallel resonators more closely to qw tunings of 3:1? (paraflex)
These are things that concern people (bassheads) and why they might wanna use ‘exp/con’ to summerize a complicated sequence of folded ’par’ sections (in many older, built paraflex designs, etc) to better approximate these details?
you’re not even interested in the things you would need to be in order to need to describe the shape (so Horn response can tell you where pressure is or isn’t for specific resonace freqs?)
the shape doesn’t matter as much as the changes in area being described?? You’re not even thinking about why the other profiles might help describe whats happening inside ?
why are you arguing how to describe area/length profiles which move the pressure node/antinode of that freq around for offseting the driver to positions that prevent it from being excited ? or match up parallel resonators more closely to qw tunings of 3:1? (paraflex)
These are things that concern people (bassheads) and why they might wanna use ‘exp/con’ to summerize a complicated sequence of folded ’par’ sections (in many older, built paraflex designs, etc) to better approximate these details?
you’re not even interested in the things you would need to be in order to need to describe the shape (so Horn response can tell you where pressure is or isn’t for specific resonace freqs?)
the shape doesn’t matter as much as the changes in area being described?? You’re not even thinking about why the other profiles might help describe whats happening inside ?
No - because you don't know even the most basic things from the theory (and practice!) of horns.
As long as I hear distortion free bass, that's all I care about. I want to ENJOY the enclosure and not spend time figuring out why the enclosure is so enjoyable. If I build the enclosure to the HR model, then I should not need to know why it works. There is too much positive TH data on this site to need know why it works. I know the basic principles. The enclosure combines rear and front horn loaded wave of the driver to create a greater output than with a direct radiator enclosure. The tap point is the key to getting the outcome you want. If the enclosure works in a positive flare configuration, then it should work in straight and negative flare configuration too. Basic logic.
Well, the theories I been reading on horns basically say you shouldn't build a 2 parallel sided enclosure with a pyramidal enclosure model.
It would be Interesting( and educational for my dumba$$) if you could first sim (in Nd mode) a 5 meter long ‘exp’ flared pipe….
then use the same start/stop Csa and reconstruct a very similar freq response and total pipe volume using several ‘par’ segments in an effort to describe very similar increasingly large changes in crossectional area in the same 5 meter length…. ??
what is the ratio of doubling of area/length in those?
then use the same start/stop Csa and reconstruct a very similar freq response and total pipe volume using several ‘par’ segments in an effort to describe very similar increasingly large changes in crossectional area in the same 5 meter length…. ??
what is the ratio of doubling of area/length in those?
Last edited:
Like I said before, you shouldn't build a 2 parallel side enclosure from a pyramidal enclosure model.
That definition of dimensions is yours, it is wrong, and it is not shared by the horn articles you have been reading, especially if it's my articles.
Please stop second-guessing why I wrote what I did. Because you do realize that I wrote that article? And I'm trying to tell you that you're reading it wrong. You are also spelling my name wrong.
It certainly has an effect, but it's more complex than you seem to believe.
This is wrong, and shows that you don't understand how parabolic horns are defined.
This is wrong, and shows that you don't understand how exponential horns are defined.
I don't think anyone disputes that.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:206bfea5-4426-4151-9b8c-510ea5c06cd6
"The study of horn theory and the one-dimensional approximation known as Webster’s horn equation has a long history."
"Another class of approaches is to amplify the acoustic energy before it reaches the microphone, as in parabolic dishes and horns."
NOTE THE DISTINCT SEPARATION BETWEEN PARABOLIC AND HORNS....MEANING A DIRECT RADIATOR ENCLOSURE IS A PARABOLIC ENCLOSURE TOO.
"Whereas the gain of most acoustic devices is proportional to area, the gain of a horn is proportional to the ratio of the mouth to throat areas. Therefore, a horn can produce more gain than a parabolic dish of equivalent size, as well as allowing for control of directivity."
"The three-dimensional equivalent source model was applied to an exponential horn embedded in a rigid spherical housing to describe higher order modes, diffraction, and shadowing."
"The study of horn theory and the one-dimensional approximation known as Webster’s horn equation has a long history."
"Another class of approaches is to amplify the acoustic energy before it reaches the microphone, as in parabolic dishes and horns."
NOTE THE DISTINCT SEPARATION BETWEEN PARABOLIC AND HORNS....MEANING A DIRECT RADIATOR ENCLOSURE IS A PARABOLIC ENCLOSURE TOO.
"Whereas the gain of most acoustic devices is proportional to area, the gain of a horn is proportional to the ratio of the mouth to throat areas. Therefore, a horn can produce more gain than a parabolic dish of equivalent size, as well as allowing for control of directivity."
"The three-dimensional equivalent source model was applied to an exponential horn embedded in a rigid spherical housing to describe higher order modes, diffraction, and shadowing."
I don't care how complex it is. The point is I KNOW it has an effect. All of you are acting like it doesn't have an effect because I'm not on YOUR supposed level.
hey bp, can you start a seperate thread discussing this video? It’s interesting
Level? How does this work? You run circles around me in terms of Band pass designs. Bjorn knows more about horns than I do by quite a margin. I design systems and drivers. David understands the nuts and bolts of simulating horns. Who here is on such an different plane of existence that we do not understand each other? I misunderstand things fairly regularly. And I have no problem saying that. Keeps it all real. Please think as you wish regarding your parabolic understanding. But also take a minute or two to acknowledge that there are refined understandings of horn systems that you can learn from as well.
The world is not falling apart because you have something not completely understood. Heck I figured out to use the Par setting in Hornresp because of some contributors setting me straight about 15 years ago. I was doing it wrong for quite a while. Starting messing with Hornresp in 2000.
Your wrong. There are too many physical examples in the world that backs up my understanding. Exponential expansion and exponential horns are 2 different things. A 2 parallel sided enclosure can have an exponential expansion. An exponential horn has ALL SIDES with curved exponential expansion. A conical horn has ALL SIDES with straight exponential expansion. Those 3 enclosures do not look the same when built straight or folded. They don't perform the same either.
Other than speaker enclosures, what other horn shaped devices are NOT pyramidal?
Shoot, CONical has CONe in it. That right there says you shouldn't build a parabolic enclosure from a CON model.
You just don't like the simplified explanations because you have a horn paper on the internet.
Like I said before, if there was not a difference between PAR built and CON/EXP modeling, then YOU would have not have mentioned 2 parallel sides in YOUR horn article.
Yes or no, is this a real exponential horn?
If yes, then why is not a parabolic horn with an exponential expansion?
If yes, then why is not a parabolic horn with an exponential expansion?
Do you actually even read and try to understand what some people are saying here, because it doesn't look like it at all.
It's not a very constructive conversation this way.
In fact it has just a flood of words, a monologue with silly pictures.
@BP1Fanatic
do I understand correctly that your main statement is you would like the default horn segments in hornresp to be parabolic, following your personal (and maybe others') use of the tool?
I do understand that, but it's no problem for the user to just change it.
do I understand correctly that your main statement is you would like the default horn segments in hornresp to be parabolic, following your personal (and maybe others') use of the tool?
I do understand that, but it's no problem for the user to just change it.