Now let me show you something:
- the plots below are for horizontal, vertical and diagonal polars (a 7.5 [email protected])
- on the left is the M2 clone (shown before) labeled "X", on the right an OS waveguide made squarish, aka "ATH"
- these two have the same throats (33 mm) and are about the same size
ATH has nothing you would call a diffraction slot, I assume. I just can't see where is this M2 clone actually better, having one. I see a tighter pattern control with the ATH overall, it is virtually as good diagonally as horizontally or vertically. What I am missing? I'm sorry but this "optimized diffraction slot" thing seems like a fairy tale to me. At least for a pattern control. I can't comment on HOMs.
It doesn't, just look at the data. The same beamwidths can be achieved without it so how can you say that it widens the directivity?
Seems the over 10K response is smoother without the big dip in the M2 clone, could you extend the sim to go to 20K to see it better? This might well be one of those things that turns out to be different in reality unless you model the exact exit of the driver to horn interface, but interesting as augerpro was putting a lot of effort into minimizing that issue with his shallow waveguides and sim to reality was quite close.OK, the knuckles add this bump in efficiency (?) around 1,7 kHz. Is that all?
With a 33mm throat the compression driver determines the polar pattern above 10KHz, not the waveguide. I would argue the plots are going too high already.
With a 33mm throat the compression driver determines the polar pattern above 10KHz, not the waveguide.
So why does the simulation change between waveguides when it's being driven by an ideal device?