Acoustic Horn Design – The Easy Way (Ath4)

Yes, I did.

There is a trick, that allows you to calculate acoustic power response and DI using VACS just in few clicks. Firstly, you need set "Farfield" condition in the Spectrum script to calculate the Contour plot in VACS.

Code:
BE_Spectrum
  PlotType=Arc
  GraphHeader="nonnormalized"
  BodeType=LeveldB;  Range=50
  PolarRange=-180, 180, 72
  BasePlane=xy 
  Farfield
100 Inclination=	0.0 ID= 2000

When the Contour plot is calculated in VACS, click the right mouse button on it, select "Projection..." --> "Power spectrum" tab and set tick to calculate acoustic power response and adjust it to the point source SPL. In the the "y-Integration" tab select desired angle to average SPL. Then you can calculate DI simply as difference ("Processing"->"Calculates curves n->1"...) of averaged SPL and Adjusted power response to the point source.


P.S.
Similarly, you can calculated DI of any non-symmetric 3D source by using "Baloon" graph.
 

Attachments

  • vacs DI.png
    vacs DI.png
    148.7 KB · Views: 418
Why would you do that? It would make it worse, not better. Just use it as freestanding, smoothly terminated all around the horn - it can't be any better.

- You have no idea how making it non-symmetric complicates the simulation. It would take maybe 200 - 500x more time to calculate that in a reasonable resolution.
It wouldn't be any better for the horn, that's for sure. But it would reduce the diffraction (maybe) and early reflections (probably) coming from the woofer.
 
It wouldn't be any better for the horn, that's for sure. But it would reduce the diffraction (maybe) and early reflections (probably) coming from the woofer.
I don't think this would be an issue. At least the measurements made so far didn't show anything special. They are better than ever, in fact. And the lower the crossover point the less of a problem this is.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. I always wondered if it was possible.

I just need to note, that DI of a flat baffled piston has exact analytic solution and theoretically it's DI should not decrease below 3.01dB at very low frequencies. However, numerical VACS solution for the same model showed a slightly lower value, ~2.3dB, although otherwise the both analytic and numeric solutions were very similar (the results can be find in this post Acoustic Horn Design – The Easy Way (Ath4) ). It would be interesting to know why and where VACS lost ~0.7dB :scratch2:
 
Last edited:
To align them in time the compression driver needs to be behind the woofer. By how much depends on the crossover frequency and LP filter slope. Mine is about 8 inches back and the woofer half that, crossover about 800 Hz. That's pretty close to give you an examples.
You can do a adjustment of the timing with the LP filter design.
 
To align them in time the compression driver needs to be behind the woofer. By how much depends on the crossover frequency and LP filter slope. Mine is about 8 inches back and the woofer half that, crossover about 800 Hz. That's pretty close to give you an examples.
You can do a adjustment of the timing with the LP filter design.

The alignment applies to the acoustic centers, I suppose?
You (also) use DSP, as I recall, which should make things easier.
 
The alignment applies to the acoustic centers, I suppose?
You (also) use DSP, as I recall, which should make things easier.

The acoustic center is ill-defined, so I avoid using this term. Just consider the physical distance from the diaphragm to the far field.

In the 100's (maybe > 1000) speakers that I have made only a half dozen or so were active - my own speakers included. But from my observations active is not worth the extra expense and complexity. I could measure small improvements but nothing substantial was noted audibly. If it wasn't so much trouble, I'd just go back to passive on my own system.