i never seem to get a math to english translation i can make sense of to help my understanding.
and that leads me to think it it's a cop out because it's not fully understood by the presenter.
and that leads me to think it it's a cop out because it's not fully understood by the presenter.
Not entirely, of course and I specifically referred to the BD system with "Hornvorsatz" (Wings) that largely eliminate the interference/cancellation issues between the rear- and front-radiated waves.
Despite the size, this system "works", even in smaller rooms, but also in - far from ideal - conference rooms, as thousands of people have experienced at a local show.
The drawback, if you can call it that, is lower efficiency at the low end. This is compensated by using multiple woofers and dsp. The system is capable of output flat down to about 17Hz, but in that case it'll evidently be excursion- and SPL limited. It's loud enough though. 120 dB is a piece of cake when low freq. extension is slightly sacrificed.
The bass of this system doesn't sound/feel like the average closed or bass reflex cabinets at all. This may take some getting used to for some people.
Last edited:
So when you don't understand something you default to whats presented is most probably faulty?
My impression is that those that use math seem to have a substantial better grip of reality than us other less fortunate...
Regrettable, me included... :-/
//
Last edited:
Yes and no, I've known academics who understood the numbers, but didn't have a deeper understanding of what they were saying. For example, I know a tenured mathematics professor, one of the top combinatorics guys in North America, who's also an audio guy. I've tried for years to convert him to waveguides, sent him work by Geddes, this forum... it just doesn't seem to click for him. He claims his speakers are the best because they were designed by guys who did PA work for the Rolling Stones. They have multiple bullet tweeters on each speaker...
Last edited:
Math theory vs applied science
One might understand and figure out more information....another might be able to use the information explained in laymen's terms, in application, with more talent
Both are needed
One might understand and figure out more information....another might be able to use the information explained in laymen's terms, in application, with more talent
Both are needed
"if the goal can be stringently described" = Applied science
"nothing else than math is needed"= Math theory
Both are needed.
"nothing else than math is needed"= Math theory
Both are needed.
being a human calculator vs (logic/talent/wisdom) abstract reasoning....
Last edited:
That's a good observation.
I've seen type 1 people fail miserably in solving complex multidisciplinary problems, both in college and professionally.
What do you guys think of biradial horns?
I've made a little experiment combining two of my favorite contours.
Horizontal is CD with wider coverage angle
Vertical is a more of an exponential with good loading.
In Fusion360, I just revolved the contours in their respective plains and truncated one curve by the other (ish) to get the final shape.
Has anybody else tried to combine contours in this fashion?
I've made a little experiment combining two of my favorite contours.
Horizontal is CD with wider coverage angle
Vertical is a more of an exponential with good loading.
In Fusion360, I just revolved the contours in their respective plains and truncated one curve by the other (ish) to get the final shape.
Has anybody else tried to combine contours in this fashion?
well i would like guys like Kolbrek or DelGado or Geddes to break it down for the lesser minds like myself but truly feel that much of our understanding of horn design has become a black art due to the fact that from as far back as the inception of horns the math employed fails to account for all that is going on....
at the end of the day no matter what complex math was employed the only thing that matters is peoples subjective response to the device.
at the end of the day no matter what complex math was employed the only thing that matters is peoples subjective response to the device.
Last edited:
What are the dimensions of this biradial horn ? And how many dBs per shade have you used to plot the polars?
Patrick Bateman had a thread where he did something like that. I had a question for him but unfortunately he hasn't replied yet.
How to Make a New Wave Biradial Horn
Last edited:
You cant blame math for the absence of understanding between subjective experience and a theoretical model (math!) of a horn. The math is most probable very correct - measurements and models concur. But it will come a day when we understand hearing and the black art will be passed where it belongs...
"ok make a horn that doesn't produce any form of distortion whatsoever...."
I never claimed it is possible... if its not possible, well...
//
"ok make a horn that doesn't produce any form of distortion whatsoever...."
I never claimed it is possible... if its not possible, well...
//
Last edited:
Can't be worse when the simulations show less reflections and diffraction can it?🙂 I mean you can simulate some existing horn, see if you have reflections. Some examples here in the thread. It is possible to make horn where it seems there is no reflections and diffraction so the promise is there, many examples in the thread. Otherwise it is about the whole speaker system + room if it is better than some other system in the same room.
The main benefit here is that you can actually design almost any horn you can imagine to fit exactly your system and application. It is up to the designer if it fits the intended system or not 😉 No impressions required if you trust the numeric calculations of the simulations and their prove of less reflection and diffraction on some designs over some other. It is different matter if you can hear the difference, but what does it help if the horn is best you could come up with simulation wise given all the other constrains than sound? Best simulation result is best sound for the situation one is chasing.
The main benefit here is that you can actually design almost any horn you can imagine to fit exactly your system and application. It is up to the designer if it fits the intended system or not 😉 No impressions required if you trust the numeric calculations of the simulations and their prove of less reflection and diffraction on some designs over some other. It is different matter if you can hear the difference, but what does it help if the horn is best you could come up with simulation wise given all the other constrains than sound? Best simulation result is best sound for the situation one is chasing.
Last edited:
well seeing as how currently there is no means to "hear" a simulation how does one develop the proper correlation between sim and subjective response?
and as to the assumption that reflections and diffraction being bad, how is it that many old school horns that are categorized as "diffraction" horns are considered good sounding horns....
and as to the assumption that reflections and diffraction being bad, how is it that many old school horns that are categorized as "diffraction" horns are considered good sounding horns....
Experimenting is good, but this one maybe wasn't your best. Those are probably not the polars you would want in a waveguide.
There are many people here with waveguides less optimized than what Marcel has produced, and we know they sound good. And they sound a lot better than lesser waveguides, or non waveguide horns. So it's no stretch of the imagination that his are going to sound better.
Once Jzagaja gets his big printer fixed he's going to be printing a pair of 608mm / 24" sandhorn style waveguides for me. I'll give you my subjective opinion once I have them set up. 😉
If you're ever in the praries then you're welcome to come by for a listen!
Ath is tool you can make almost any horn you want, if not sure what you want then why not design multiple different waveguides and listen? Or just buy some existing commercial units? Horn sound comes from the reflections and diffraction and the obvious waveguiding, the directivity. What else is to it, loading? You can make almost any directivity, with or without reflections. Loading and directivity (beaming) seem to be balancing act but you could pick either which is more important to you. All metrics as smooth as possible, how much smoother you want?😀 You can actually design and fabricate a horn that has flat DI 100Hz to 20kHz you just don't find a driver that can cover that range, and it would be huge.
You should know that subjective opinions don't matter, people have different taste and experience. Mabat examples have been the smoothest so should be "better" than anything before it, if they fit your application. Not everyone want ~15" round freestanding horn in their living room so something else is better for them, for example an old cool looking horn that doesn't measure as well but gets you into happy tears every time for other reasons.
Some measurements have been published and they seem to reflect the simulations pretty well so if you are after "the best measuring horn ever" I'm not sure where you find it if not in this thread. Might be that you like the oldies horns more, but You have to try them both to determine that. Remember there is million other variables in a system than the wave guide. Different systems can sound different even if they had the same "the worlds best measuring wave guide". They both could sound worse than the other speaker I've built or bought for big €€€ that doesn't have wave guides at all. 😀 Nothing personal, just trying to give a perspective. Power is in your hands, don't believe what others say.
Last edited: