JAG,
I feel so much better now that you have given me permission to design as I normally would 🙄.
Comments like yours are what keep most individuals that have anything worthwhile from contributing to this forum, other than a few masochistic bullet-proof souls that still keep coming back to the overflowing dish of crapula.
Cheers,
Art
That quote is where you draw the line? This is a minor disagreement about the necessity of adding a divider panel in a sealed chamber, no insult was implied by me regardless of what you may have inferred and I backed up my opinion with good technical explanations, even conceding that your proposed separate chambers are technically superior but unnecessary.
I'm really interested to know who these people are that I've scared away. Anyone I've ever disagreed with has been served with a good deal of supporting evidence.
In the last week alone you've stated outright that you learned at least two things from stuff I've posted, I'd wager you learned quite a bit more than the two things you mentioned because full size horns are not your comfort zone.
I'm here to discuss and learn audio theory and concepts, not to celebrate mediocrity and bad design like so many people who use technical forums like they use social media so it's not hard to understand why some people don't like my style. If I see something I don't agree with you are going to hear about it.
If you don't like me or don't find my input worth reading there's a handy ignore feature. Use it or report me for moderation or quit complaining because I really don't care what you think of my posting style. I'm very interested in everything you say that is technical in nature but not this so save your breath. This is a very small difference of opinion about a minor design feature that has little (if any) consequence. If you are getting this emotional about it you need to stop reading my posts before your blood pressure gets dangerous.
I'm really interested to know who these people are that I've scared away. Anyone I've ever disagreed with has been served with a good deal of supporting evidence.
In the last week alone you've stated outright that you learned at least two things from stuff I've posted, I'd wager you learned quite a bit more than the two things you mentioned because full size horns are not your comfort zone.
I'm here to discuss and learn audio theory and concepts, not to celebrate mediocrity and bad design like so many people who use technical forums like they use social media so it's not hard to understand why some people don't like my style. If I see something I don't agree with you are going to hear about it.
If you don't like me or don't find my input worth reading there's a handy ignore feature. Use it or report me for moderation or quit complaining because I really don't care what you think of my posting style. I'm very interested in everything you say that is technical in nature but not this so save your breath. This is a very small difference of opinion about a minor design feature that has little (if any) consequence. If you are getting this emotional about it you need to stop reading my posts before your blood pressure gets dangerous.
@ just a guy
Well i had a tinker & managed to get this so far. See my att HR record
I expect it's screwed up in various places 🙁
But i have to say, HR drives me crazy having to constantly alternate between different single view only screens to see what's happening. And then finding out it's not what i was trying to acheive, so it goes back & forth etc etc ! Obviously you & some others don't seem to find it an issue, but i do & i'm sure others do too.
If you could att your HRR that ports into the horn, i might then be able to try & comprehend what's what.
In the HR help file it lists in LOUDSPEAKER MODELS - Horn-Loaded Vented-Box Enclosure With Port Exit Located Inside Horn Mouth - as an option, but i don't see it in the Driver Arrangement box ?
Well i had a tinker & managed to get this so far. See my att HR record
I expect it's screwed up in various places 🙁
But i have to say, HR drives me crazy having to constantly alternate between different single view only screens to see what's happening. And then finding out it's not what i was trying to acheive, so it goes back & forth etc etc ! Obviously you & some others don't seem to find it an issue, but i do & i'm sure others do too.
If you could att your HRR that ports into the horn, i might then be able to try & comprehend what's what.
In the HR help file it lists in LOUDSPEAKER MODELS - Horn-Loaded Vented-Box Enclosure With Port Exit Located Inside Horn Mouth - as an option, but i don't see it in the Driver Arrangement box ?
Attachments
I already showed you all you need to know, the inputs for the sim with the chamber ported into the horn throat.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Horn-Loaded Vented-Box Enclosure With Port Exit Located Inside Horn Mouth is not an option you can chose, if you read the Help file you will see that you "trick" the program into simulating this kind of thing by using a TH setting with a flh, and then fill in Ap and Lpt, this will port the chamber into the horn mouth.
The extra step that I did was because I didn't want it ported into the horn mouth, I wanted it ported into the throat. So in that case you have to set up it up so S1 - S3 are all very short, they need to be there so a TH sim will run. Then you can define the horn flare with what's left, S4 and S5. But in this case, since the horn mouth was larger than 99999.99 and S4 can't be that size but S5 can, I had to waste S4 as a very short segment too.
Anyway, if you just use my inputs and look at the schematic, then change things one item at a time and continue to look at the schematic you will see how it all works.
JAG,
Thanks for caring 🙂 .
Turned the big six OH today, just found out Hillary Clinton is 9 years older, don't feel quite as ancient as I did when I woke up.
Yesterday did a heart treadmill test, my blood pressure has dropped 20 points in the last 4 months to a new all time low, so I won't have to ignore your posts due to health concerns
.Cheers,
Art
I do care, actually quite a lot. I was very distressed when you took this extremely minor disagreement about the importance of an extremely minor design detail and turned it personal. We agree on almost everything and there's nothing in that quote, that post, or this entire discussion that warranted your "overflowing dish of crapula (sic)" post so I have to assume that's your general opinion of the sum of my forum contributions, which I'm obviously not happy about.
In case it's not clear I have a great amount of respect for you, your technical proficiency and your prolific experience in your truly inspiring career accomplishments. You rate in the top two people on this entire forum whose input I respect most, the other being David McBean since he's done so much for us and because his technical knowledge is bulletproof, in fact I don't recall him ever being wrong about anything.
That doesn't mean I'm going to bow down to petty personal conflict complaints. I always give a boatload of supporting evidence to support everything I say, and if it's not enough I'm always prepared to submit more when asked or questioned. My posting style is blunt because it is efficient and effective and I'm comfortable with my opinions and technical knowledge. The simple fact is that most people don't like it at all when they are told they are wrong and they get extremely defensive regardless of whether the supporting evidence suggest they are indeed wrong or not. I have no patience for that, it is the antithesis of science and what a technical forum is for.
I suspect the main person you feel I've scared away is Danley, as I've had a couple of interactions with him that went less than ideally and he doesn't post here as much as he used to. While I've got a lot of respect for his technical prowess and accomplishments too, I'm not nearly as impressed with his forum contributions which are mainly marketing propaganda that doesn't really help anyone. And I've called him out on a few issues, memorably the Labhorn problems that he openly admitted in the Labhorn design notes. But he doesn't like to be questioned. That's his prerogative but he's not infallible and he is going to be questioned, and when I do it I present evidence. He no longer seems to put up with any questioning at all since his confrontations with Parham a few years back, and if you followed those discussions Danley can be as catty and nasty as anyone else, far more offensive with personal attacks than I've ever been. And the positions he's defending are not always technically correct despite the godlike status he's afforded in places like this.
So I make no apologies, I present my technical information and if anyone doesn't like it they can defend their position, turn a technical discussion into a personal attack, present their resume in lieu of a technical argument or simply chose not to continue the discussion. These are all valid approaches and while I greatly prefer the former I have no problem with any of the latter options.
Turned the big six OH today, just found out Hillary Clinton is 9 years older, don't feel quite as ancient as I did when I woke up.
Yesterday did a heart treadmill test, my blood pressure has dropped 20 points in the last 4 months to a new all time low, so I won't have to ignore your posts due to health concerns
Cheers,
Art
Happy birthday, and hopefully there will be at least 40 more of them to celebrate.
JAG,
Thanks for the good wishes, I plan to live to be 125 (read some of Ray Kurzweil's recent books, and you may "go for it" too) so I'm less than halfway through.
I don't know of anyone you personally have "scared away" from this forum.
The Danley/Parham sparring was over a decade ago, Wayne P was banned from the LAB (Live Audio Board) for his use of fake personas to attack and troll. I won't say any more lest a moderator decides to take up his (lost) cause again, and throw me in the "sin bin" as happened the last time I posted my difference of opinions with him.
There is, and will continue to be a distinct scarcity of audio professionals (other than DJs…) on this forum, as they generally won't take the time to defend their opinions to anonymous individuals that tend to bog the signal to noise ratio down with petty details, whether promoting off the wall opinions, or simulated facts repeated ad nauseum.
Who knows, maybe things will start to change for the better in another decade or so, but I won't hold my breath, or increase my blood pressure waiting for some future "glory days" to appear :^) .
Cheers,
Art "Old Man" Welter
That is absolutely not why there is a scarcity of audio professionals on diy technical forums.
The big OEMs have nothing at all to gain - they are already selling in big numbers and it makes no sense to devote any time to trying to convince a few extra customers that their product is superior - that's what they using marketing dollars for. It especially makes no sense here - any of us can design and build superior products for less cost so there's nothing to be gained, they will never be a presence here.
The smaller OEMs and retailers already do have a presence here and on other forums but it's usually in a marketing capacity, not out of love for the science. A particularly egregious example is Bill Fitzmaurice, who was banned for aggressive marketing techniques including sockpuppeting here. Still today on a dozen different forums he makes as many posts as possible, each with a signature link to his products, and many trying to convince people that they are designing wrong and that horn design is just too hard for everyone except pros like him.
On the other hand we also have a couple of smaller OEMs here that spend little or no time marketing and a whole lot of time discussing the science, these are rare cases and will never be a significant presence. Geddes is here at diyaudio, Mark Seaton is at avsforum and you will rarely see them speaking of their products and even more rarely in the context of making a sale. Neither of them are right all the time (room gain doesn't exist?) but they are contributing out of a love for the topics, not a desire for marketing.
Industry pros that use the equipment but don't design it will never be a presence here either. That's what LAB and prosoundweb and forums like that are for. The only time you catch them here is when they contemplate diy but don't know how or in very rare cases someone like you that knows how to design and use the equipment professionally shows up.
If you want a forum that is chock full of audio "professionals" all you have to do is follow the money. Audiocircle is the perfect place, it connects marketing departments (which are commonly also owners of one man shops) directly with their fanboy customer base, who are almost without exception completely ignorant of how the products work or how to evaluate them. THAT is where the industry insiders flock because for the most part they have no love for the science but a great need for a marketing vehicle.
None of that has anything to do with the "anonymous individuals" here being mean or dumb, in a lot of cases forum members know a lot more than these industry pros.
I'd be able to let that slide if it weren't for the "simulated facts repeated ad nauseum" and the "blood pressure" bits, that's a thinly veiled strike directed right at me.
First of all, a simulator in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing is a lot more useful than a measurement mic in the hands of someone that doesn't. Furthermore, a simulator used wisely is almost as good as a measurement mic - those that don't agree are not using simulators properly. And third, if facts need to be repeated ad nauseum it's because there are people that are too dense or stubborn to accept the information the first time around. That says a lot more about the people that refuse to learn, all it says about the people repeating information is that they are tenacious and helpful.
You want to agree to stop this now or continue? OP seems to have lost interest so either way I'm game.
TL;DR bit:
For my own interest, plus to give something that may be worthwhile for the OP (away from all the flirting, in this thread), I'm going to repackage the info I found on Greg B's horn that I was referencing, with some sim info. I'll make a new thread on it, in the Multi-way forum, called "Artichoke Horn".
*** *** *** *** ***
Possibly the OP. Remember this?
...and you've at times irritated me, but I wasn't "scared away", as you put it.
Post 286
A counter example, post 179
FYI, "a quick skim" is not the same as always giving a "boatload of supporting evidence". But based on the "quick skim", you took the time to post these descriptors:
Yet you claim to have an "efficient and effective" posting style.
Do you think that - maybe - being so quick to criticise could annoy people, and contribute to the "overflowing dish of crapula"?
JAG, as well as being quick to argue, you also do a bit of selective misquoting, don't acknowledge your mistakes, don't acknowledge that someone else is 95% right when you jump on a minor issue, and sometimes go off topic yourself, yet chide others for doing so.
Note: I'm not saying I find your posts unbearable, not at all. For the most part they are interesting, sometimes amusing. But some of what you do is annoying.
I detect hypocrisy.
When I did a sim for the horn I linked to, post 201, it looked very good. To me, it therefore looked like you, JAG, were wrong. However, rather than concede anything on this, you argued some more. To 'support' your refusal to concede, you wrote several things (quoted below, from post 210) that were flatly the opposite of the underlying info that I used for the sim - and which I've also quoted, in the list below.
JAG, a few minutes reading (maybe a second "quick skim") could have given you this info. Instead, you wasted your time defending and adding to your earlier bad assumptions (arguing, rather than learning) ...hence I gave up on that discussion.
Note: that last comment is something I also missed, initially, despite it being pretty easy to find.
Also in post 210:
That's JAG doing bad paraphrasing to destroy the original meaning and try to make someone else seem naive. The original phrase was this:
...which seems 100% valid to me - it is silly to calculate a full space horn for half space use. You, JAG, might recognise the idea from having echoed it yourself, just a few days ago.
But in post 210, you misquoted an idea that you agree with, to support your assumption that "This guy clearly didn't have a clue".
You dumped lots of clunkers like that, but I can't be bothered referencing more examples: it takes time to do it properly. Perhaps you could find them yourself, out of interest. I wouldn't have bothered at all, but I was further annoyed by yur claim of being purely interested in technical info, and implying that "petty personal conflict" was 100% other people's issue, not yours.
These examples, and others, such as I pointed out earlier post 268 make me think that you simply like arguing more than you are ready to admit.
For my own interest, plus to give something that may be worthwhile for the OP (away from all the flirting, in this thread), I'm going to repackage the info I found on Greg B's horn that I was referencing, with some sim info. I'll make a new thread on it, in the Multi-way forum, called "Artichoke Horn".
*** *** *** *** ***
Possibly the OP. Remember this?
...and you've at times irritated me, but I wasn't "scared away", as you put it.
Post 286
A counter example, post 179
FYI, "a quick skim" is not the same as always giving a "boatload of supporting evidence". But based on the "quick skim", you took the time to post these descriptors:
- very wrong
- terrible design
- incompotence
- didn't know what he was doing
- I could probably have a toddler draw a picture of a horn on a napkin and build from that crayon drawing and get results as good as this guy's horn
Yet you claim to have an "efficient and effective" posting style.
Do you think that - maybe - being so quick to criticise could annoy people, and contribute to the "overflowing dish of crapula"?
JAG, as well as being quick to argue, you also do a bit of selective misquoting, don't acknowledge your mistakes, don't acknowledge that someone else is 95% right when you jump on a minor issue, and sometimes go off topic yourself, yet chide others for doing so.
Note: I'm not saying I find your posts unbearable, not at all. For the most part they are interesting, sometimes amusing. But some of what you do is annoying.
I detect hypocrisy.
When I did a sim for the horn I linked to, post 201, it looked very good. To me, it therefore looked like you, JAG, were wrong. However, rather than concede anything on this, you argued some more. To 'support' your refusal to concede, you wrote several things (quoted below, from post 210) that were flatly the opposite of the underlying info that I used for the sim - and which I've also quoted, in the list below.
JAG, a few minutes reading (maybe a second "quick skim") could have given you this info. Instead, you wasted your time defending and adding to your earlier bad assumptions (arguing, rather than learning) ...hence I gave up on that discussion.
- it is roughly exponential, or as close as possible given two days of labor and reasonably economical use of standard size plywood
- it was theoretically a 30hz horn
- I used ~1:1 compression ratio, including the vent area as part of the driver area
- We actually were big enough geeks to bring a signal generator and SPL meter to the desert. I was wandering around checking out the festival when my friends were geeking out testing it though. They said audible response into the upper teens, I think the F3 was like 25 or something, but I don't remember really
Note: that last comment is something I also missed, initially, despite it being pretty easy to find.
Also in post 210:
That's JAG doing bad paraphrasing to destroy the original meaning and try to make someone else seem naive. The original phrase was this:
- The "bottomless" type [of horn] makes a lot more sense to me if intended to be used in half space. To me, a full sized horn with a carefully calculated expansion is almost a little silly if the mouth is resting on the ground.
...which seems 100% valid to me - it is silly to calculate a full space horn for half space use. You, JAG, might recognise the idea from having echoed it yourself, just a few days ago.
But in post 210, you misquoted an idea that you agree with, to support your assumption that "This guy clearly didn't have a clue".
You dumped lots of clunkers like that, but I can't be bothered referencing more examples: it takes time to do it properly. Perhaps you could find them yourself, out of interest. I wouldn't have bothered at all, but I was further annoyed by yur claim of being purely interested in technical info, and implying that "petty personal conflict" was 100% other people's issue, not yours.
These examples, and others, such as I pointed out earlier post 268 make me think that you simply like arguing more than you are ready to admit.
Your summary is too kind given your detailed indictment of this anonymous guy's self-aggrandizement. You omitted his compulsive stalking of people he sees as "enemies" - a class you now are a member of.
The personality shortcomings you identify, whether in just a guy or anybody else, would be nothing but "noise" in a social chat setting; but here they pervert the usefulness of the discussion.
So let's get back to the larger system-design questions that need to be settled before combative nit-picking minor questions of horn design resumes.
B.
Last edited:
And speaking of combative nit-picking minor questions of horn design, it would be sensible to make the concrete super-structure big enough so that OP could try out some alternatives using wood to shape the fine-tuning. Mixing wood and concrete may seem distasteful to the brittle theorists among us, but acoustically OK.
Funny thing, when you think of sims, you think you have "the truth" and are all set to cast your theory in concrete. Rather than constructing something that is easily modified in all the ways that may prove appealing later.
B.
Funny thing, when you think of sims, you think you have "the truth" and are all set to cast your theory in concrete. Rather than constructing something that is easily modified in all the ways that may prove appealing later.
B.
Last edited:
The OP covered this near the start of the thread, the idea of ply (changeable) throats to mount different numbers of drivers. It seemed like a good idea to me, given how well the OP crafts things.
As for the other point, I'm content with saying "Statement X bothered me for reason Y" rather than making whole-personality judgments.
JAG,
Hollowboy pretty much hit all the points in post # 290, but I'll respond too:
1) A simulator certainly can be useful, and a measurement system can confirm that whatever one is testing works as it should.
2) I don't agree that a simulator is "as good as a measurement mic" anymore than I would agree that a saw is as good as a screwdriver, they are both useful tools that serve different purposes, and like any tool, they can be used or misused. I have spent enough time learning how to use all sorts of tools that for the most part I use them properly, but will still use tools "improperly" if I don't feel like spending the money for a tool I may seldom use, and will never have enough experience using to be proficient with.
3) I'm not dense, and have "accepted" your information every time I have responded to it, though whether I agree with what you have written won't change no matter how many times you repeat it. I don't mind stubborn, but ignorance is hard to deal with, and repetition just gets old, like the Talking Heads song, "Psycho Killer" says:
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?
4) Yes, I want to agree to stop this now 🙂 .
Cheers,
Art
Last edited:
Yes, and I also remember he made a couple dozen posts after that after I proved I was not splitting hairs for the sake of argument, I think he learned a good deal in this discussion. I don't know why he isn't contributing anymore, but that quote isn't the reason, clearly.
Like I said, people don't like it when you tell them they are wrong, and on the burning man horn you are very wrong.
Absolutely, people don't like it when you tell them they are wrong. Are you here to learn something or to make friends that you can plan a destination vacation with and hold hands and sing around the campfire songs of mediocre design?
The sim you did had nothing at all to do with the reality of what was built. How could I possibly concede?
- the burning man horn was not exponential, he just built something that looked roughly exponential
- the burning man horn rear chamber was reportedly ported into the throat (although the pics look like it's ported to the outside air, not the port) - this was a deviation from the design sim and you didn't bother to sim this at all - it makes a big difference
- he didn't even bother to measure and accurately record the horn length
- due to the way it was built and described it's almost inconceivable that the compression ratio was 1:1, as shown in the picture I submitted
- for those reasons the builder had no way to know if it was a 30 hz horn as built
- for all of these reasons the sim you did has no validity whatsoever
- all of these things I know because I actually read the thread you linked to
I just bullet pointed all the reasons why the burning man horn was badly designed and can't possibly perform as well as a well designed horn. This is all stuff I mentioned before, yet you dismiss all of it on a technical level and insist it's arguing. If you can't see the reality I can't help you - the sim you did is not even close to representing what was actually built, and what was actually built was very badly designed.
Hollowboy's elaborate post is a very detailed description of his own unwillingness to evaluate the burning man horn in an accurate technical manner, leading to his disappointment in being called wrong. And he was spectacularly wrong.
For proving points of theory a simulator is arguably better than a mic. Especially at low signal levels, which is where most theory is discussed.
I was speaking in generalities, I wasn't saying you were dense. It certainly seems you are calling me ignorant though. Regardless, it takes at least two people to have a discussion and if things are repeated it's because both are not agreeing, so don't diminish your part in this. I gave good and correct technical reasons for my opinions, you gave none except for a subjective evaluation of two different "functionally similar" horns.
You got it. It seems I've been voted out of this discussion which is fine. (Ben's vote doesn't count, as he clearly still is not paying attention, OP stated very early on that some features would be made of wood and easy to change - and Ben continues to dismiss the theory presented although he clearly doesn't understand it.)
So I won't post here anymore unless I'm directly provoked.
Now that I've shown you guys how to sim various types of full size horns and how to evaluate them (you're welcome by the way - almost everyone here has either outright stated that didn't know how to design horns or that they learned something from me) you should be ok to continue on your own.
Good luck OP, you are going to need it. You've got a guy that doesn't understand horns at all and isn't even following the discussion that only pops in to make pokes at the people that do know what they are doing. You've got a guy that has proven that he doesn't care in the least about being accurate when reverse engineering and simulating, a guy that seems to be in awe of a very badly designed horn with little documentation built in the desert. And another guy that actually kind of knows what he is doing but has no experience whatsoever with even looking at full size horns before this discussion started. Good luck indeed.
1) Whether a horn is exactly exponential, or a rough approximation of exponential makes very little difference in it's measured response, assuming it is reasonably well braced for the power used.
2) Yes, the response would be different whether ported or not, though in straight horns of this size it makes little difference due to the distance between the port's output, external to the horn, having little relative contribution to the overall SPL, and that contribution is diminished further by the inverse distance losses in front of the long horn.
The old truck width RCA "W" bins had the 15" drivers open air, and still had solid response down to 40 Hz, in spite of the open drivers being only 30" from the horn exit.
3) There are plenty of one-off designs that are not well documented, but it is easy to determine their size relative to other known sizes of objects shared in the photographs.
4) I have not looked at your picture, have only seen one photo of the horn, as the throat was not visible, impossible to tell exactly the exit size or shape.
5) The builder, and anyone present savvy to what 30 Hz response is like could easily know if the response went that low, regardless of the actual flare rate. Flare rate is largely an academic construct, it has little to do with response.
6) Invalid simulations don't invalidate personal observations. After having listened to horns of hundreds of different designs ranging from hypex, exponential, conical, and combinations of all those, with Fc ranging from below 30 Hz to thousands of Hz, I don't need a simulation to inform me of what the sound will be like, and one look at the Burning Man horn photo is enough to convince me that it would be capable of way more output than the driver used in any little (by comparison) "properly designed" cabinet that make up the majority of systems at the festival.
7) Granted, a horn built from a better design will outperform a badly designed horn in some metrics, but that in no way reduces the output capabilities of huge horns that don't conform exactly to simulations.
In the hot desert Burning Man festival conditions, running highly compressed electronic dance music for extended periods, an "improperly" vented compression chamber may offer distinct thermal advantage over a tiny, sealed "reactance annulled" chamber that cooks the driver to death.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it 😀 .
Cheers,
Art
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm going to read that as direct provocation.
Small differences in horn flare make small differences in the horn's behavior. Very obviously large changes in the horn flare are going to make large differences in the horn's behavior. The designer pretty much said that he just built something that looked exponential, the reality is that if you do that by eye it's very likely not going to be even close. If you read between the lines and consider the fact that he didn't even bother to measure the horn length accurately, you can get an understanding of how far from the design plans the actual horn ended up being.
If you had bothered to look closely at the ported rear chamber horn sims I provided you would see that the addition of the ported rear chamber is not the only thing that changes when you add that port. The output from the horn itself changes too, and in very bad ways if you don't do it just right. You can royally screw up a good design by deciding to stick a port in the rear chamber without any idea of what's going to happen.
Yes, of course. But in this case there's a very small picture of a horn in the desert. You can't accurately determine the shape of the horn flare, the horn length, the size of the rear chamber or even what's going on with the port in the rear chamber. There's no way to get even a reasonable sim of this horn because the details are just not there.
You saw the picture, although I don't doubt that you didn't actually look at it. You seem to be ignoring a lot in this discussion. It's very unlikely (almost inconceivable) that the compression ratio is 1:1. It's simply not likely due to the way it was built.
You seem to give the designer a lot of credit he does not deserve. And regardless of whether this horn hit 30 hz or not, it was not intelligently designed and it absolutely isn't a good design.
What are you saying here? That because of the sheer size the horn is better than a steaming pile of crap? I would agree, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it was very poorly designed by people that did not know what they were doing. Bigger is almost always better but bad design is bad design. The two concepts can coexist and produce meaningful output, but an intelligently designed horn would be better.
Fantastic. One of the terrible design decisions inadvertently resulted in an unexpected, unplanned and unquantified possible benefit. The flipside to this "benefit" is that the rear chamber is now open to the desert dust which is being sucked into the driver and into the gap through the vented pole (assume the pole is vented).
Besides, a properly sized reactance annulled chamber does not have to be tiny, I just got done explaining to Ben that it can be quite large. It all depends on your desired gain bandwidth.
Congrats, you made a long post about how this terribly designed horn is still louder than a small box and how bad decisions based on an incomprehensible level of ignorance can possibly lead to unexpected side benefits.
I find all of this incredibly disingenuous since I know you are somewhat of a perfectionist, going through dozens if not hundreds of iterations of your Keystone to get it just right. You guys are trying very hard to argue with common sense just because I'm the one that presented it and you didn't like how I did it. There is nothing redeeming about this burning man horn besides the fact that it's ambitious and large. It's a bad design by a guy that didn't know what he was doing, and that is undeniable fact.
I am still here, and my project is still a go! I have two significant unresolved design issues:
(1) I am still on the hook as to whether or not to build one mono horn, or a pair of stereo horns. . . .
(2) I'm trying to finalize the horn shape. I.E. square/rectangle mouth, octagon mouth, hexagon mouth, etc. I'll have no problem in smoothly transitioning the round throat shape, into whichever final mouth shape I choose. Initially I was leaning towards making an octagon horn (assuming it would sound better than a square horn). So which shape sounds best??? Is this an opinion, or is there actual science behind it?
I keep reading parallel walls are bad. What??? There are no parallel walls in a horn. Example: assume a square-mouth horn. The horn walls can be approximated by an infinite series of tangential planes - where none of these planes are parallel - - - not a single one. . . .?
My concrete options are Shotcrete (a wet sprayed on concrete - like the type used to make curved swimming pools), and plain cast concrete. Shotcrete is pretty cool, however you cant really spray it overhead. . . I'd have to form the lower half of the horn from the inside, then the upper half of the horn from the outside - if I use Shotcrete. The issue I'm having with casting traditional concrete, is in trying to get the lower portions of the forms to completely fill (without voids), in a single pour. I can use super-plasticizers, which will certainly help, however the forms would need to be that much stronger.
I will be using individual sealed rear chambers for each driver. I had not originally considered cone sag, however I am considering it now. . . . I also have an idea to seal the horn mouth from the environment (when not in use) to keep out animals & moisture - which I'll post about this evening. . . .
Last edited: