I am pretty sure CATT can do all that...
https://www.catt.se/postproc_mod.htm
https://www.catt.se/srcdir_mod.htm
Greetings all,
I understand that ATH4 can export to Fusion. However, I have a lot of time invested in learning Solidworks, to start with another 3D program, is there a way to export to another format that would be recognized by Solidworks?
I would like to 3D print the Tritonia for 1.5 inch, 0 deg throat, and I need to spit it into parts due to the 3D printer size.
Kindest regards,
M
I understand that ATH4 can export to Fusion. However, I have a lot of time invested in learning Solidworks, to start with another 3D program, is there a way to export to another format that would be recognized by Solidworks?
I would like to 3D print the Tritonia for 1.5 inch, 0 deg throat, and I need to spit it into parts due to the 3D printer size.
Kindest regards,
M
Fusion is necessary to use mabat's script. I made a macro for solid works that does the same thing using excel
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-design-the-easy-way-ath4.338806/post-6358858
The basic version for individual curve import (which is time consuming) is here
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-design-the-easy-way-ath4.338806/post-6354230
Or failing that post the grid export csv you want to use and I will make you a step file which you can import.
...perhaps hard to believe at first, certainly unintuitive (for me), but this is a comparison between ST260 (a small waveguide for a 1" driver) and a big waveguide with a 2" throat. Note the power responses (and the DI curves, naturally) - the shapes of the curves are not that different. "All" the difference is in the nominal coverage angle:
If interested, you can easily simulate that. All you need are lumped-element models of the drivers. There has been support for that in Ath for a long time, it's simple to add this to a script, once you have the models (could be something generic).
- I can do it if someone gives me a typical 2" driver parameters.
- I can do it if someone gives me a typical 2" driver parameters.
Last edited:
Between 1k - 15k the DI curves for 10° are virtually identical in shape.
Both devices normalized to 10°:
There's still a difference between the two, of course - with the big waveguide the early reflections will have less HF content (i.e. will be less spectrally similar), compared to a smaller waveguide. How much is this audible could reveal an auralization experiment, as mentioned before. Would love to hear that in a direct comparison in a controlled test.
- There's no way to make a 2"-throat waveguide with the same nominal beam width as for a 1" throat (that would beam too much at HF), but if we make the DI higher overall, we have a great device back. It never occured to me how close it can be in terms of power response.
This of course holds for a 1.4" throat as well - it would be somewhere between the two curves shown above.
Both devices normalized to 10°:
There's still a difference between the two, of course - with the big waveguide the early reflections will have less HF content (i.e. will be less spectrally similar), compared to a smaller waveguide. How much is this audible could reveal an auralization experiment, as mentioned before. Would love to hear that in a direct comparison in a controlled test.
- There's no way to make a 2"-throat waveguide with the same nominal beam width as for a 1" throat (that would beam too much at HF), but if we make the DI higher overall, we have a great device back. It never occured to me how close it can be in terms of power response.
This of course holds for a 1.4" throat as well - it would be somewhere between the two curves shown above.
Last edited:
Those two waveguides are obviously very different, hense the difference in load.
A narrower horn presents more throat impedance, and is also increases the directivity.
The 2" horn has a beam width of 60 degrees at 2k and the 1" horn - almost 100 degrees.
Even if loading was the same, the sound pressure on axis will be magnitudes lower since it's now has to fill twice as big slice of pi.
Wouldn't a 1" waveguide with the same spread as the 2" demonstrate the same qualities?
How much subjectively different a 5db difference in the power response will be?
The direct to reverberant ratio will be higher. Maybe not always desired.
Yes, it's still pretty well controlled, IMO, as is the smaller one (the big one even better, actually).
- That was the main message I attempted to communicate
That would be an interesting comparison. There is the option to import any [x,y] profile into Ath now, so if anyone has an exponential profile at hand...
(The big one is ⌀652 x 343 mm).
Last edited:
Hi fluid,
Kindest regards,
M
Thank you for the reply. I will try the two linked options first, so that I do not need to bother you unless I became desperate.
Kindest regards,
M
Hi mabat,
Kindest regards,
M
I have detailed measurements x=f(z) and y=f[z] as well as analytical equation for the popular B-52 PHRN-1014 wave-guide, which is exponential, that I can send you. I would like to try, but I have difficulty (due to my incompetence), with anything but axis-symmetric devices.
Kindest regards,
M
Well, "even better" might be a bit of stretch but close
These are the power response curves again (EQed so the direct sound at 10° is flat):
What is the exact throat diameter you need? (1.5" could mean 38, 40 mm, sadly, or maybe something else...).
I could make a STEP file of the surface, that's not a big deal.