Oops, fixed an error, use this one...
This is my current system in Hornresp. I have already fixed a few errors and who knows what others may lurk. Great, another toy to drain my time 🙂
The freq response isn't so dire, for a first attempt (design free, at that.)
This is my current system in Hornresp. I have already fixed a few errors and who knows what others may lurk. Great, another toy to drain my time 🙂
The freq response isn't so dire, for a first attempt (design free, at that.)
Last edited:
That's very good for a first Hornresp attempt but...
1. The t/s parameters are significantly different than the published specs. Where did you get them? Is this the xxls-p830845? Did you measure the specs?
2. S1 can't be equal to S2 unless...
- the enclosure is non rectangular OR
- you physically bent the driver OR
- you are using 2 (or any equal number greater than 2) drivers OR
-the line is a constant csa (no taper)
3. We usually sim for 2pi, although 1pi is fine if you are going to corner load the sub (and .5pi is ok if your sub is corner loaded in a perfect, infinitely rigid corner, or you just want to show off, which is fine, I do it all the time)
4. You have a number in the AP1 box. AP1 the throat chamber port csa. You don't have a throat chamber in this sim, so this number won't affect the sim at all, just curious why it's there.
It's barely a full octave of barely flat response, so maybe not dire, but not really good either.
The first thing I do with any tapped horn design is compare it to a ported box with the same driver. In this case, this tapped horn can be easily beat by a simple ported box just over half the size of this tapped horn.
Again, this is an excellent first attempt at Hornresp, but IMO it's not time glue this thing together yet.
Last edited:
Good points.
And for Soldermizer's adversity to using tools, one thing I found out long ago is there are wastebaskets designed to fit nearly every size loudspeaker.
Drop the speaker on top of the bin, cut a port hole with a knife, jam in a duct, and away you go.
If it's not stiff enough, buy another larger wastebasket and fill the gap between the two with concrete 🙂.
Yes, for portable applications much preferred over concrete 😉
You have to make sure the inner bin is stronger than the outer, or cabinet volume will be reduced when that "Great Stuff" blows the walls in 😱 !
Here's a slight variation on that but it does require a knife (or similar tool) to cut the hole. Not my style but if was kinda funny seeing the city folk in the forums wondering where they could buy an empty bucket.
Subwoofer
Help the ijit -- learn how to measure gooder!!!
OK, here is a revised revision of my cabinets (as entered into hornresp IJIT4.DAT). I swapped out drivers and was able to re-measure a bit more accurately.
Good chance I've goofed on entering values for drivers too. I do not have the equipment to measure. So it's the published specs. I'm very green at Hornresp.
Here is the Peerless driver I have:
http://www.tymphany.com/files/XXLS-P830845 Rev1_0.pdf
In my enthusiasm for "cheap" I jumped on the following (cheap) 12" sub:
Kenwood KFC-W12PS. And T-S parameters are available at kenwoodusa. I entered these -- took a while to figure out that Sd was in m^2, not cm^2. 🙂
Kenwood - KFC-W12PS
This driver sims better than the Peerless in my cabinet (with wrong or right dimensions!) If my measurements are to be believed, I get my alleged 18 Hz and pretty flat up to 60 Hz? nearly 100 Hz with the dip/peak in 80-90 Hz range.
Extra bracing seems to have reduced my buzzy cabinet for now.
What I've built is more like a Transflex. It certainly puts out the bass, and besides a sub should cross over below 100 Hz right?
Thanks for getting me started on Hornresp and (OMG!) I have actually built a large wooden box! Carpentry! Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Great now I can put the Peerless back in the tube and when I get a wild hair (they grow where you sit), I will do some REW measurements of this junk. Even in one spot for your purists.
Yes I saw the Redneck Concrete sub a few weeks back. I have another (not 100% original) idea. If others here are making speakers with foam board (not subs, as far as I recall), I thought -- has anyone explored using paper, plastic, very lightweight materials to make subs? "Probably so." For a dabbler, especially one seeking Carpentry-Free(TM) methods, flexible pipes perhaps? Just because it's flexible doesn't mean it won't work. For example, a regular garden hose is flexible (PVC maybe?) yet it can stand several PSI of water pressure, probably far more than even a loud sound wave in a speaker. So the question is probably "How much energy is lost to flexing?" Even that may not be a bad thing. After all, a speaker's job is to put the sound out of the container ... eventually ... Perhaps the losses are acceptable? Or for the very handy, how about an intricate balsa wood and struts subwoofer? Why not? Small "aeroplanes" have been built for a century and still are, using such engineering ideas. On the downside, other than "bragging rights," do you really want a subwoofer that weighs only five pounds (not including the driver)? That someone will flatten when they sit their large posterior upon it, or that burns to the ground when someone flicks an ask at it? 🙁
...and now, back to that Spanish lit 🙂
OK, here is a revised revision of my cabinets (as entered into hornresp IJIT4.DAT). I swapped out drivers and was able to re-measure a bit more accurately.
Good chance I've goofed on entering values for drivers too. I do not have the equipment to measure. So it's the published specs. I'm very green at Hornresp.
Here is the Peerless driver I have:
http://www.tymphany.com/files/XXLS-P830845 Rev1_0.pdf
In my enthusiasm for "cheap" I jumped on the following (cheap) 12" sub:
Kenwood KFC-W12PS. And T-S parameters are available at kenwoodusa. I entered these -- took a while to figure out that Sd was in m^2, not cm^2. 🙂
Kenwood - KFC-W12PS
This driver sims better than the Peerless in my cabinet (with wrong or right dimensions!) If my measurements are to be believed, I get my alleged 18 Hz and pretty flat up to 60 Hz? nearly 100 Hz with the dip/peak in 80-90 Hz range.
Extra bracing seems to have reduced my buzzy cabinet for now.
What I've built is more like a Transflex. It certainly puts out the bass, and besides a sub should cross over below 100 Hz right?
Thanks for getting me started on Hornresp and (OMG!) I have actually built a large wooden box! Carpentry! Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Great now I can put the Peerless back in the tube and when I get a wild hair (they grow where you sit), I will do some REW measurements of this junk. Even in one spot for your purists.
Yes I saw the Redneck Concrete sub a few weeks back. I have another (not 100% original) idea. If others here are making speakers with foam board (not subs, as far as I recall), I thought -- has anyone explored using paper, plastic, very lightweight materials to make subs? "Probably so." For a dabbler, especially one seeking Carpentry-Free(TM) methods, flexible pipes perhaps? Just because it's flexible doesn't mean it won't work. For example, a regular garden hose is flexible (PVC maybe?) yet it can stand several PSI of water pressure, probably far more than even a loud sound wave in a speaker. So the question is probably "How much energy is lost to flexing?" Even that may not be a bad thing. After all, a speaker's job is to put the sound out of the container ... eventually ... Perhaps the losses are acceptable? Or for the very handy, how about an intricate balsa wood and struts subwoofer? Why not? Small "aeroplanes" have been built for a century and still are, using such engineering ideas. On the downside, other than "bragging rights," do you really want a subwoofer that weighs only five pounds (not including the driver)? That someone will flatten when they sit their large posterior upon it, or that burns to the ground when someone flicks an ask at it? 🙁
...and now, back to that Spanish lit 🙂
Last edited:
Ok, this is a bit better in some respects but there are still a bunch of problems. Starting with the good news, you entered the t/s specs correctly. A small side note though, I always enter t/s parameters, even when Bl is listed, so when I entered it, Bl was 13.55 instead of 13.6. Either way this won't make much difference.
Now the bad news. You still have a problem at S2. Again, unless your box is not rectangular or you have physically bent the driver or you are using more than one driver, S1, S2 and S3 have to line up in a straight line. You can make sure of this by using the Louspeaker Wizard and clicking on "S2 Manual" to make it change to "S2 Auto". And assuming you want an easy construction with a single partition board inside the box, you have to do the same thing with S3, otherwise it's going to be MUCH more difficult to build.
Another problem I noticed now that I didn't notice last time is that your measurements don't add up. You said you were using 12 inch wide sides and 18 inch wide front, back and partition board. As I mentioned, this will give you about 1220 cm2 (minus whatever area is taken up by the divider panel), which has to be divided between the throat and mouth. Your values don't add up with this one, or the IJIT3. Also, reported volume is different between these two models and what it should be based on the interior volume that these boards will give you. So something is way off here.
One other problem I missed last time is that you have CON segments. You need to switch to PAR.
Next, you should be able to get rid of the horrific notch at 75 hz. Either through design or with a different driver. This is really kind of unacceptable unless you really want that dip for some reason.
Also, this driver has very low xmax, which limits your output to almost unacceptably low spl levels. With only 66 watts you hit xmax and you only get about 107 db in 2 pi space, very low for a box this size.
Furthermore, this design doesn't show much benefit over a ported box almost 3x smaller. In fact, the ported box doesn't have the massive notch at 75 hz, so it's overall a better choice.
Finally, wrt the measurements, no need to do any on my account, I already know how it will measure. If you accurately build what you simulate the measurements will be very close to the simulation. The problem here is that this sim isn't even close to what you have built. If you do want to do some measurements for your own benefit it's best to do them outside in a large open area.
Getting better, good work.
Now the bad news. You still have a problem at S2. Again, unless your box is not rectangular or you have physically bent the driver or you are using more than one driver, S1, S2 and S3 have to line up in a straight line. You can make sure of this by using the Louspeaker Wizard and clicking on "S2 Manual" to make it change to "S2 Auto". And assuming you want an easy construction with a single partition board inside the box, you have to do the same thing with S3, otherwise it's going to be MUCH more difficult to build.
Another problem I noticed now that I didn't notice last time is that your measurements don't add up. You said you were using 12 inch wide sides and 18 inch wide front, back and partition board. As I mentioned, this will give you about 1220 cm2 (minus whatever area is taken up by the divider panel), which has to be divided between the throat and mouth. Your values don't add up with this one, or the IJIT3. Also, reported volume is different between these two models and what it should be based on the interior volume that these boards will give you. So something is way off here.
One other problem I missed last time is that you have CON segments. You need to switch to PAR.
Next, you should be able to get rid of the horrific notch at 75 hz. Either through design or with a different driver. This is really kind of unacceptable unless you really want that dip for some reason.
Also, this driver has very low xmax, which limits your output to almost unacceptably low spl levels. With only 66 watts you hit xmax and you only get about 107 db in 2 pi space, very low for a box this size.
Furthermore, this design doesn't show much benefit over a ported box almost 3x smaller. In fact, the ported box doesn't have the massive notch at 75 hz, so it's overall a better choice.
Finally, wrt the measurements, no need to do any on my account, I already know how it will measure. If you accurately build what you simulate the measurements will be very close to the simulation. The problem here is that this sim isn't even close to what you have built. If you do want to do some measurements for your own benefit it's best to do them outside in a large open area.
Getting better, good work.
Last edited:
Yes, many problems
Guy, one thing that was throwing us off me (or the lumber industry) not defining their products well. My "1 inch" 4x8 sheet was actually 3/4" (2 cm). Still may have errors in measure ments, but yesterday this is what i wrote down:
Box is rectangular, its dimensions (interior, metric) should be (height, width, depth) = ( 236, 40.5, 24.5) cm.
S1 = 4 * 40.5 = 162
S2 = (8.25, average of 2 measures so it is a bit cockeyed) * 40.5 = 334.125
S3 = (20, I measure to front of driver, perhaps this makes it seem wider?) * 40.5 = 810
S4 = 18.5 * 40.5 = 749.25
Driver is mounted at 28 cm. For path I have been using 480 (guess it should be 478, allow -2 cm for top panel). Right now the rear panel is about 55 cm "short" so my mouth is (40.5 * 55), do I shorten the path because of this? For the matter, what is the recommended final mouth size? Some designs is same as Sd, others are tune to taste.
All a learning experience. I have a feeling that the Ijit Mark II will be built according to a better plan and many simulations 🙂
Guy, one thing that was throwing us off me (or the lumber industry) not defining their products well. My "1 inch" 4x8 sheet was actually 3/4" (2 cm). Still may have errors in measure ments, but yesterday this is what i wrote down:
Box is rectangular, its dimensions (interior, metric) should be (height, width, depth) = ( 236, 40.5, 24.5) cm.
S1 = 4 * 40.5 = 162
S2 = (8.25, average of 2 measures so it is a bit cockeyed) * 40.5 = 334.125
S3 = (20, I measure to front of driver, perhaps this makes it seem wider?) * 40.5 = 810
S4 = 18.5 * 40.5 = 749.25
Driver is mounted at 28 cm. For path I have been using 480 (guess it should be 478, allow -2 cm for top panel). Right now the rear panel is about 55 cm "short" so my mouth is (40.5 * 55), do I shorten the path because of this? For the matter, what is the recommended final mouth size? Some designs is same as Sd, others are tune to taste.
All a learning experience. I have a feeling that the Ijit Mark II will be built according to a better plan and many simulations 🙂
Last edited:
3/4 inch is 19 mm, not 2 cm. Stuff that is labelled 3/4 inch is commonly actually only 18 mm, so the lumber industry does lie a bit, but it would be extremely uncommon to see it labelled as 1 inch but measure 3/4 inch. It sounds like it was labelled wrong by accident or on purpose (to rip you off). Either way, it's probably 18 or 19 mm, I seriously doubt it's 20 mm, that's not an industry standard.
Assuming this is correct we can at least determine the interior volume to some degree of accuracy. HxWxD = 234.171 liters. Subtract the volume taken up by the partition board and add the volume of the mouth hole and your total internal volume should be somewhere around 220 liters. Once folded there will be a bit of extra volume in the corners going around the bend, so take away another 10 liters or so and we have 210 liters.
We can use that as a sanity check. If your Hornresp schematic screen is showing significantly more or less than 210 liters there is a big problem. IJIT 1 KFC shows 264 liters, this is a problem.
First off, this isn't possible. Like I said, S1, S2 and S3 have to line up to form a straight line. You don't have any other options here, otherwise there's a bend at S2 and it wouldn't be possible to mount the driver.
Second, there is a right way and a wrong way to measure things. We don't take an average of 2 different (wrong) measurements.
Third, if any of these measurements are even remotely accurate your partition board is probably not placed to provide a constant expansion through the flare length. If this is true you need more than 3 segments to simulate this box. You need at least 4 segments and probably 5, since you made the mouth hole an arbitrary size. Hornresp can only do 4 segments.
This is probably the most complicated single fold horn anyone has ever done.
Path length is not a simple 16 feet, the advanced centerline method is much more complex than that.
There is no recommended mouth size, you use what works in a simulation.
I have a feeling that you are not really learning anything. Some of these things (like the S1, S2, S3 in a straight line) I've mentioned 3 times now and you either don't get it or don't care.
I don't want to be mean, but if you can't provide some realistic details of what's going on inside this box OR a detailed drawing I really can't help you. This should be really simple, it's a rectangular box with a single divider panel.
Dissembling I am...
Tell you what, I have not deliberately tried to give bad information, but I have revised my data at least three times. 😱
I've measured with a wooden yard or meter stick, not a bloody micrometer 🙄
Let us not do anything more on this model until I have that detailed drawing and yet another try at measuring things.
Tell you what, I have not deliberately tried to give bad information, but I have revised my data at least three times. 😱
I've measured with a wooden yard or meter stick, not a bloody micrometer 🙄
Let us not do anything more on this model until I have that detailed drawing and yet another try at measuring things.
Help the Ijit build a ... well, a little of everything!
Over on my "cardboard enclosure" thead
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/251430-proposal-cardboard-sub-test-enclosure.html
Bjorno supplied me a plans and a hornresp file for my existing Peerless woofer.
Seeing how I am being pulled in three directions at once, not quite sure what to Soldermize, if you will, in the graphic he supplies there is a little photo saying it can be built with my favorite construction material. That's right boys and girls, Sonotube!
Now that I am getting the hang of Hornresp (or enough rope to hang myself?) I got the reasonable idea to take the supplied design (for lack of a better name, I shall call it the Bjornhorn since it appears to have come from Scandinavia) 🙂
I can satify all my addictions at once, perhaps, until the next dumb idea comes along: rather than make another abomination out of wood, why not cut up my existing 12" Sonotube and try to make a Bjornhorn? It is almost Carpentry-Free(TM) and I just need to check the measurements and figure out how to join two sections (I think it can be done in two.)
Over on my "cardboard enclosure" thead
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/251430-proposal-cardboard-sub-test-enclosure.html
Bjorno supplied me a plans and a hornresp file for my existing Peerless woofer.
Seeing how I am being pulled in three directions at once, not quite sure what to Soldermize, if you will, in the graphic he supplies there is a little photo saying it can be built with my favorite construction material. That's right boys and girls, Sonotube!
Now that I am getting the hang of Hornresp (or enough rope to hang myself?) I got the reasonable idea to take the supplied design (for lack of a better name, I shall call it the Bjornhorn since it appears to have come from Scandinavia) 🙂
I can satify all my addictions at once, perhaps, until the next dumb idea comes along: rather than make another abomination out of wood, why not cut up my existing 12" Sonotube and try to make a Bjornhorn? It is almost Carpentry-Free(TM) and I just need to check the measurements and figure out how to join two sections (I think it can be done in two.)
...well maybe no building right now...
I'm still learning Hornresp. Apparently the Bjornhorn looked so good because the Eg was 28.3, other records used 2.83. So the SPL looks better? When I set this Eg value all to 2.83, in the low bass where I care ( lowest octave, maybe 2) they are all in the 95 dB range. Ironically, the original Sonomizer (10 1/2 12" tube with driver stuck just inside) has the best combined response. I have modelled a Transflex but as far as I can tell the original Sonomizer is the same thing except the ports are far apart 🙂
Which brings up the questions: what should be the standard testing parameters? As a wise a$$ said: "Standards are wonderful, because there are so many to choose from."
I'm still learning Hornresp. Apparently the Bjornhorn looked so good because the Eg was 28.3, other records used 2.83. So the SPL looks better? When I set this Eg value all to 2.83, in the low bass where I care ( lowest octave, maybe 2) they are all in the 95 dB range. Ironically, the original Sonomizer (10 1/2 12" tube with driver stuck just inside) has the best combined response. I have modelled a Transflex but as far as I can tell the original Sonomizer is the same thing except the ports are far apart 🙂
Which brings up the questions: what should be the standard testing parameters? As a wise a$$ said: "Standards are wonderful, because there are so many to choose from."
Last edited:
Do you know what Eg is? It's not appropriate to set it to 2.83 for all your sims if you want to compare them to each other. 2.83V is 1 watt at 8 ohms. If you want to compare different designs at 1w, you need to double click the Eg box, enter 1w and enter the driver's dcr.
Anyway, the 1w performance of any given sub is really not useful information (in most cases) unless you are planning on playing it at 1w. If you really want to compare what different designs can do, check their spl at xmax, not 1w.
And unless your box is an absolutely huge horn or a small OB, your 1w sensitivity isn't going to be much different in any alignment.
Not ironic, none of the designs you are looking at have particularly good performance, and the Sonomizer (I assume that's your sonotube tl?) has terrible and varying combined response when measured from different locations in relation to the sub.
Are you talking about the 1950's Jensen Transflex? If so, it's not really much like your design (I assume the Sonomizer is your sonotube tl?). But if you put the driver taps at 0 and 100 percent of line length it will sim exactly the same as an end loaded tl.
What do you mean by standard testing parameters? Different people test in different ways. Competent testing is usually done in an anechoic chamber or outside in a quiet environment with no close boundaries or large objects, like in the middle of an open field or a parking lot, with a series of sweeps from 1w and then increasingly more power until power compression becomes a visible problem. But then again, depending on what you are testing for, that might not be the best way to test.
Last edited:
Still much for me to learn. Yes the "Sonomizer" is my latest silly name for my Sonotube + Woofer. Yes, I had been trying to model a Transflex or similar designs. As for bad responses, ALL of my designs suck in Hornresp! This perhaps not to astound, since i've been using it less than a week.
Unless I'm doing something very wrong (quite possible), one thing that surprised me is that my own "designs" (e.g. the Sonomizer) sim pretty well in my limited range of interest, basically < 100 Hz (or wherever the spike/notch is ) 🙂
I've been reading up still more on TH and Danley. I feel like a patent examiner. I'm becoming skilled in the art. Well, not really. I finally grasped (I think) what Danley has done: he can take one (or more) taps and with varying horn/path lengths, he can tune the taps to taste. Now if I could just build (or even sim) a "preferred embodyment" of a TH design.
Unless I'm doing something very wrong (quite possible), one thing that surprised me is that my own "designs" (e.g. the Sonomizer) sim pretty well in my limited range of interest, basically < 100 Hz (or wherever the spike/notch is ) 🙂
I've been reading up still more on TH and Danley. I feel like a patent examiner. I'm becoming skilled in the art. Well, not really. I finally grasped (I think) what Danley has done: he can take one (or more) taps and with varying horn/path lengths, he can tune the taps to taste. Now if I could just build (or even sim) a "preferred embodyment" of a TH design.
I showed the response of the sontube tl in post 11. And I think this is the 4th time I'm mentioning that it DOES NOT sim very well, the response is extremely variable depending on where you stand in relation to the sub and no matter where you stand the response isn't particularly good.
A preferred embodiment of a TH design is easy to find. There's even plans available for the TH-SPUD, one of Danley's commercial models, and it's been said that the Xoc1 TH18 is extremely close to another of Danley's commercial models. Playing around with either of those in Hornresp will teach you a lot more about tapped horns than reading the resources you've been looking at.
Here's the problem with the stuff you've been reading. The Jensen Transflex isn't really a tapped horn, it was just something Jensen came up with that seemed to work, several decades before the term "tapped horn" was invented. They didn't follow up on it, they didn't have computers to predict how other variations would work. They never did anything like it again. As far as I know there are no available t/s parameters for the driver they used, so you can't really simulate it properly.
Cowan's 3 tapped horns were (IIRC) the first three tapped horns EVER that didn't come from Danley. They were made long before Hornresp could simulate tapped horns, and although Akabak could simulate them, I don't think he actually did simulate them until long after they were made. They worked well enough but they are not particularly impressive.
The tapped horn patent is deliberately vague and really doesn't say much.
The Collaborative Tapped Horn thread (which I believe you said you were reading) is a mess. It started several months before Hornresp could simulate tapped horns, and several months after Hornresp was updated to accomodate tapped horn simulation, people were still arguing over whether Hornresp could do it accurately. By the time tapped horns were a well known alignment and people had it mostly figured out, the Collaborative Tapped Horn thread was mostly abandoned. There are a few good pieces of info here and there, but it's mostly a massive waste of time.
Most of your resources are VERY old and contain a lot of bad information. A bit of practice with a simulator is better than all of them combined (IMO). There are some good resources but I don't think you are looking in the right places to find them. DHAA started a good thread recently, most of the major players in this forum were involved and it's a goldmine of info for a beginner.
Last edited:
Thank you! I will look for the recommended sims of Danley builds. I agree this site is a gold mine (it's my favorite for many months). Perhaps I am spending too much time getting the "fool's gold"! My approach, if you could call it that, to building stuff is pretty much summed up by a bumper sticker fromt the 1980s:
"I didn't invent sin, I'm just trying to perfect it!"
"I didn't invent sin, I'm just trying to perfect it!"
Becoming an obsession!
You guys gotta help me! When I see culverts laid out along the highway, I imagine what a huge sub could be built from it. Even a harmless mailing tube in an office (I volunteer) brings the urge to make a mini sub.
On a slightly more serious note (or is it an unwanted resonance?)
I am looking for help in simulating something, or the sage advice from the elders ("No, that won't work, it was tried by xxxx in message YYYYY."): a take-off on the Danley patent [application], I tried modeling transmission lines and getting them in "wavelenghts" of 1, 3 and 5. I figured out how to make excel export files of the separate drivers' outputs, and then a script to sum them. I want to explore what Danley might do. Am I correct in assuming that Hornresp can not model two or more simulataneous tapped horns? Based on my only Excel "results" so far, I am intrigued by the summed output (front/rear) of the wavelength/4 and 3*wavelength/4 graphs: I will try and post it too. While not flat by any means, it is relatively benign up to 160s or so when there are two sharp nulls.
You guys gotta help me! When I see culverts laid out along the highway, I imagine what a huge sub could be built from it. Even a harmless mailing tube in an office (I volunteer) brings the urge to make a mini sub.
On a slightly more serious note (or is it an unwanted resonance?)
I am looking for help in simulating something, or the sage advice from the elders ("No, that won't work, it was tried by xxxx in message YYYYY."): a take-off on the Danley patent [application], I tried modeling transmission lines and getting them in "wavelenghts" of 1, 3 and 5. I figured out how to make excel export files of the separate drivers' outputs, and then a script to sum them. I want to explore what Danley might do. Am I correct in assuming that Hornresp can not model two or more simulataneous tapped horns? Based on my only Excel "results" so far, I am intrigued by the summed output (front/rear) of the wavelength/4 and 3*wavelength/4 graphs: I will try and post it too. While not flat by any means, it is relatively benign up to 160s or so when there are two sharp nulls.
Here is an Excel worksheet
Not having anything else at the momemnt, here is my spreadsheet. The alluring graph(s) are on the indicated sheets. Am I onto something? The heretofore undiscovered cancelation to get ruler-flat response? OK well maybe not that big a break-through. If my method is sound, I find it amusing that the F1+F3 gives nicer result than adding in F5.
Not having anything else at the momemnt, here is my spreadsheet. The alluring graph(s) are on the indicated sheets. Am I onto something? The heretofore undiscovered cancelation to get ruler-flat response? OK well maybe not that big a break-through. If my method is sound, I find it amusing that the F1+F3 gives nicer result than adding in F5.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.