I did find it, but when do I can not use loudspeaker wizard.
I did forget the T function, now also this I have learn to use.
regards
Last edited:
Hi Jack and Mark,
I changed my mind, it’s not the first time I've done that 🙂.
I have started working on a parametric equaliser (PEQ) option for the Filter Wizard.
Not sure how long it will take.
Kind regards,
David
Wauw we say in holland, your sofware gets much more clever then the expensive ones, and this for free.
thanks from the DIY community.
kees
thanks from the DIY community.
kees
You bet, I get a little ring while I'm sleeping from my cell phone. And this news.
Sounds good to me!
Thanks alot David this will help in many simulations. People use EQ and it does work, but being able to simulate what is happening is very useful other than the anecdotal stuff.
David,
Considering there is little agreement between manufacturers (or even different implementations from the same manufacturer) regarding the "Q" factor in digital PEQ, not sure how useful it will be in simulating the response of real world DSP.
Perhaps you can create plug in options for each DSP platform, that should only take "N" x how long it will take 😉.
Art
@ Art
I consider it's usefulness in regards to Possible uses of boost, and the outcome of the results.
So far I have consistently seen Hornresp predict a greater cone excursion than I have seen in use. Allowing for this as a safety factor, we could use the boosted predictions to know how close to the hairy edge we really are.
You can design a horn with a much smaller volume still with enough path length but a higher compression ratio. And use a bit of boost to make up the difference.
Nothing new of course, just something where we can get a little bit better than guesses.
@ David.
I am starting on a project when the snow disappears to actually measure the cone movement in an enclosure using an accelerometer from measurement specialties. Should prove to be interesting. Maybe my observations about reduced cone excursion are wrong, maybe they are correct. But we will have a bit of measurements to find out either way.
If I make a viewing panel, I could also use the stroboscope for some insights.
Sounds like there's a Youtube video in there somewhere....
I consider it's usefulness in regards to Possible uses of boost, and the outcome of the results.
So far I have consistently seen Hornresp predict a greater cone excursion than I have seen in use. Allowing for this as a safety factor, we could use the boosted predictions to know how close to the hairy edge we really are.
You can design a horn with a much smaller volume still with enough path length but a higher compression ratio. And use a bit of boost to make up the difference.
Nothing new of course, just something where we can get a little bit better than guesses.
@ David.
I am starting on a project when the snow disappears to actually measure the cone movement in an enclosure using an accelerometer from measurement specialties. Should prove to be interesting. Maybe my observations about reduced cone excursion are wrong, maybe they are correct. But we will have a bit of measurements to find out either way.
If I make a viewing panel, I could also use the stroboscope for some insights.
Sounds like there's a Youtube video in there somewhere....
Hi David,
The PEQ functionality is great news. Looking forward to it. 🙂
Hi Mark,
It would be great if you could start a thread to document your measurements, especially if you can get measurements throughout the whole power range.
Regards,
The PEQ functionality is great news. Looking forward to it. 🙂
Hi Mark,
It would be great if you could start a thread to document your measurements, especially if you can get measurements throughout the whole power range.
Regards,
Hi mwmkravchenko,
There are a few already...
He only forgot to mention 'some' references... Also no excursion relations, so fwiw:
Tapped Horn @ 45Hz With 800W
Tapped Horn @ 35Hz With 800W
Tapped Horn @ 25Hz With 800W
Offset Driver Front Loaded Horn @ 45Hz With 800W Power
Offset Driver Front Loaded Horn @ 35Hz With 800W Power
Offset Driver Front Loaded Horn @ 35Hz With 800W Power
Interesting videos, but no real information as to the tests, and the actual measured movement.
But good ideas on how to video it!
Thanks.
But good ideas on how to video it!
Thanks.
Hi Art,
Thanks for the reality check 🙂.
I don't think so... 🙂.
Kind regards,
David
Thanks for the reality check 🙂.
I don't think so... 🙂.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Mark,
Careful measurements done by Bjørn Kolbrek some time ago showed the predictions of diaphragm displacement to be quite accurate, provided that the driver operates linearly and a sinusoidal input signal is used.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/119854-hornresp-15.html#post1591527
Kind regards,
David
somehow i knew it😀.
tnx david.
i agree with art ,but otoh one should only use it as an indication.
Going forward the inaccuracy issue may be less common as manufacturers switch to DSP/math based technology.
Thanks for all the hard work David!
Thanks for all the hard work David!
David,
Unfortunately the links to Bjørn's measurements no longer work.
Although Hornresp is quite good at predicting excursion within the linear range of operation of a loudspeaker, that is displacement at or below Xmax, it is not accurate above Xmax, where most users are concerned regarding placement of filters to protect drivers from over excursion. Since it predicts more excursion than usually will be experienced, it is a benign problem, but an inaccuracy nonetheless.
Above Xmax the driver's BL (magnetic force) drops off, as the voice coil progressively leaves the magnetic gap there is no longer the force left to push a stiff suspension past a certain excursion. Hornresp does not take the dropping BL into account, and it appears to consider the suspension to have near infinite elasticity and linearity, obviously not the case for many PA type drivers which "put the brakes" on excursion before the voice coil hammers the back plate.
Attached are sine wave tests conducted yesterday and today on some new Dayton PA385S-8 drivers, which are designed with many features similar to higher priced Italian drivers. As you can see, measured results are quite close to the Hornresp simulation up to a bit past Xmax, but then diverge more and more, the simulations off as much as three times down in the lower frequencies.
This observation is why I am amused by user's delight in your addition of filter models and your consideration of PEQ filters, as the range below Fb is exactly where the simulations will differ most widely from measured results 🙂.
Art
Attachments
Last edited:
No, but I plan to shoehorn them in some small cabinets and measure the frequency and distortion response 😉.
The open air tests make me think they are going to perform quite well.