Below is a ball that I've got rolling but I hope to involve others. I desire to design basic Waveguides/Horns but I want to do so in a Wysiwyg fashion. So far, just from starting a thread on the blender forums, I see the potential for something easy, free and accessible to the community. The Geometry Node section of Blender is modulistic, in a good way. It also has a learning curve. I think with the superpower of community effort, we could cover ground pretty quickly. Lets share ideas and developments here and use the Blender Forum thread, linked in the pictures, to work with the Blender Wizards there to further our efforts. This has been a goal of mine, and as I make progress I will share it here. I know with community involvement it will be much better and quicker developing, its just a matter of, the community taking interest. So far I can create the shapes of various Round, Elliptical, Square/Rectangle, and soon Squircle mouthed waveguides, with expansion profiles that can be designed visually. The goal would be to develop a Geometry Node set up, to the point of producing simple printable models within a short amount of time. Anything that I have is downloadable in the thread linked. Good Luck 😉
Camplo,
The goal of producing horns with specified shapes and near ideal polar patterns has been demonstrated many times over in the Acoustic Horn Design – The Easy Way (Ath4) thread:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...the-easy-way-ath4.338806/page-34#post-5980566
What are you attempting to do that has not already been done there?
The goal of producing horns with specified shapes and near ideal polar patterns has been demonstrated many times over in the Acoustic Horn Design – The Easy Way (Ath4) thread:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...the-easy-way-ath4.338806/page-34#post-5980566
What are you attempting to do that has not already been done there?
First is the Wysiwyg interface..,, Meaning you design what it is you are seeing simultaneously as in What You See Is What You Get. With Blender we could arrive at shapes that are designed visually and ready for simulation simultaneously. If I could do everything I wanted with Blender Geometry Nodes that I could with ATH, I would go with Blender every time based on the idea that Blender would be faster, and Visually stimulating. Wysiwig is preference for me, and probably anybody if they had a choice. If ATH did the 3d modeling simultaneously (Wysiwyg), that would be considered an Upgrade... Well Blender Geometry Nodes provides that potential.
Second, ATH4 is obviously very nice, but nothing you produce from it can be used for anything than DIY, so if one wanted to sell a design that was produced with it you would be facing litigation. Blender frees you from those limitations, the shapes/models are yours to do with what you want. ATH is being used to generate products but not by anyone than the owner/designer and he's not looking to share so....
The simple shapes of conical/exponential horns are potentially easier to produce with Blender. What I am saying is that, after the module programming is done... you just move a bunch of sliding data input around and see the result instantly, visually. The learning curve for future users of what I want develop would be much lesser than ATH. Using Blender to create basic waveguides, after the modules have been set up, would have a lower learning curve than HornResp and ATH.
What exactly is the process chain when using ATH? Program the config file and then run it and then to a 3d program (Blender) to see what you have? Does ATH go straight from config programming to Simulation? You still will end up in a 3d program (Blender) before 3d printing. Don't you have to use a 3d modelling software in cahoots with ATH? So if I remove the ATH out of the process, why is this bad?
You commonly see people doing things with ATH that no one else knows how to do...With the Programming finished in Blender Geometry Nodes, everyone can do the same things easily because the learning curve is low.. There is a much less learning curve to moving around a bunch if sliding data with visual report of what changes are being made.
Second, ATH4 is obviously very nice, but nothing you produce from it can be used for anything than DIY, so if one wanted to sell a design that was produced with it you would be facing litigation. Blender frees you from those limitations, the shapes/models are yours to do with what you want. ATH is being used to generate products but not by anyone than the owner/designer and he's not looking to share so....
The simple shapes of conical/exponential horns are potentially easier to produce with Blender. What I am saying is that, after the module programming is done... you just move a bunch of sliding data input around and see the result instantly, visually. The learning curve for future users of what I want develop would be much lesser than ATH. Using Blender to create basic waveguides, after the modules have been set up, would have a lower learning curve than HornResp and ATH.
What exactly is the process chain when using ATH? Program the config file and then run it and then to a 3d program (Blender) to see what you have? Does ATH go straight from config programming to Simulation? You still will end up in a 3d program (Blender) before 3d printing. Don't you have to use a 3d modelling software in cahoots with ATH? So if I remove the ATH out of the process, why is this bad?
You commonly see people doing things with ATH that no one else knows how to do...With the Programming finished in Blender Geometry Nodes, everyone can do the same things easily because the learning curve is low.. There is a much less learning curve to moving around a bunch if sliding data with visual report of what changes are being made.
Last edited:
Have your efforts to attain a commercial license / agreement been turned down by the owner? If not, this statement borders defamation. The illegal use of the invention without due compensation is a very different, criminal thing.
The forumlas (OSSE and R-OSSE) are public domain, I guess, so nothing prevents anyone from making and selling anything using them, as far as I'm concerned (it only would be nice to give a reference). You don't need Ath (as a piece of software) to calculate the shapes, as almost all the know-how is disclosed in the papers or here in the ATH thread. I endorse anyone to improve on the tools, as in Ath a GUI can be seriously missing, at least for some. Blender looks great, I have just never used it. Ath will never become a regular commercial product, that's just not what I do.
By far the most important part of any such endeavour is an optimization loop, however. Wysiwyg is still not quite that 🙂
(And that's what people won't share readily, I think, as this is where the biggest value is. You want a horn that actually performs good, not only looks good...)
By far the most important part of any such endeavour is an optimization loop, however. Wysiwyg is still not quite that 🙂
(And that's what people won't share readily, I think, as this is where the biggest value is. You want a horn that actually performs good, not only looks good...)
Last edited:
I agree and thank you for your words. I am not trying to compete with ATH. I think the truth is that You, could literally take the Geometry nodes and recreate ATH within it..... you'd also instantly have your
and the best GUI has a wysiwyg visual....
Last edited:
Celestion's GUI for HornWizard has wysiwyg visuals....
Faster to get your feet wet than Blender, not a complete horn simulator, but can instantly pump out a close estimate of directivity and frequency response as a “reality check” to see if particular specifications can be achieved within specified constraints.
It also enables the user to see how different (Celestion..) drivers work on the horn.
https://celestion-horn.netlify.app/
This took about 30 seconds to generate, you can spin the horn axis around to any profile.
Kind of like a "training wheels" version of what Mabat has been doing for real 😉
Faster to get your feet wet than Blender, not a complete horn simulator, but can instantly pump out a close estimate of directivity and frequency response as a “reality check” to see if particular specifications can be achieved within specified constraints.
It also enables the user to see how different (Celestion..) drivers work on the horn.
https://celestion-horn.netlify.app/
This took about 30 seconds to generate, you can spin the horn axis around to any profile.
Kind of like a "training wheels" version of what Mabat has been doing for real 😉