I have a question about the filter wizard:
In the real world, when I use a first order high pass on a loudspeaker, there's a gentle 6dB per octave high pass.
In Hornresp, there's a big peak at the driver's impedance. A peak that I don't see in the real world.
I understand, that "technically" the filter should do virtually nothing at the driver's resonance, because the impedance at the driver's resonance is so high.
Here's a pic to illustrate this:
In the real world, when I use a first order high pass on a loudspeaker, there's a gentle 6dB per octave high pass.
In Hornresp, there's a big peak at the driver's impedance. A peak that I don't see in the real world.
I understand, that "technically" the filter should do virtually nothing at the driver's resonance, because the impedance at the driver's resonance is so high.
Here's a pic to illustrate this:
Hi PB,
To enable me to check that everything is working as it should, could you please post a screenprint of the input parameters window used for the above example. Thanks.
Kind regards,
David
Hornresp Update 4030-170102
Hi Everyone,
CHANGE
No matter how much checking and testing I do beforehand, it seems that just after releasing a new update I can always find something that I missed!
In this case, the new source output power slider had been inadvertently calibrated for pressure not power. This error has now been corrected, with the slider range being changed accordingly from +/- 6 dB to +/- 12 dB.
NOTE
Source power values saved in files using the first release will have different values when those files are opened using the new release.
Files with values set using the first release will 6 dB lower when opened using the new release. For example, a source with a value of +5 dB saved to a file using the first release will have a value of -1 dB when that file is opened using the new release.
It may be necessary to re-specify existing sources to restore the originally intended power levels.
(Note also that source power values saved in files using the new release will have different values if those files are for some reason subsequently opened using the old release).
Kind regards,
David
Hi Everyone,
CHANGE
No matter how much checking and testing I do beforehand, it seems that just after releasing a new update I can always find something that I missed!
In this case, the new source output power slider had been inadvertently calibrated for pressure not power. This error has now been corrected, with the slider range being changed accordingly from +/- 6 dB to +/- 12 dB.
NOTE
Source power values saved in files using the first release will have different values when those files are opened using the new release.
Files with values set using the first release will 6 dB lower when opened using the new release. For example, a source with a value of +5 dB saved to a file using the first release will have a value of -1 dB when that file is opened using the new release.
It may be necessary to re-specify existing sources to restore the originally intended power levels.
(Note also that source power values saved in files using the new release will have different values if those files are for some reason subsequently opened using the old release).
Kind regards,
David
Hi David,
Post # 6927: "...Hopefully the latest release will work just as well..."
Looks like it.
Just a thought to Marten's idea from Post #6928: "...2) Entry area of a section should not be limited to exit area of previous section."
Could that be implemented w/ hidden sections of a known fixed length, e.g.: .01cm? That way the input screen would not be affected, and it would still add additional sections to simulate mass-loaded transmission lines, or ports starting from a chamber?
Regards,
Post # 6927: "...Hopefully the latest release will work just as well..."
Looks like it.
Just a thought to Marten's idea from Post #6928: "...2) Entry area of a section should not be limited to exit area of previous section."
Could that be implemented w/ hidden sections of a known fixed length, e.g.: .01cm? That way the input screen would not be affected, and it would still add additional sections to simulate mass-loaded transmission lines, or ports starting from a chamber?
Regards,
Hi Mårten,
And a Happy New Year to you also!
Sorry, your two New Year's wishes are just to difficult to implement
.As advised on previous occasions, the way that Hornresp has evolved, a complete rewrite of the code and changes to most of the input forms would effectively be required to satisfy your request. All sorts of operational and formatting issues would arise as a result of increasing the number of segments. As just one example, think of the changes that would be required to the Loudspeaker Wizard to accommodate a six-segment tapped horn with a discontinuity at the interface of two of the segments. For starters, the Auto / Manual functionality associated with segment cross-sectional areas, and the Variable / Fixed / Linked functionality associated with segment lengths, would all have to be redone (and would be extremely difficult to implement in a user-friendly manner).
It has taken many years to get Hornresp to its current "relatively reliable and stable" state. Having to start all over again, essentially from the very beginning, is not something that I am in a position to seriously contemplate - I am not getting any younger, you know...
.While I agree that it would be very nice for Hornresp to have the additional features you suggest, unfortunately it is simply a practical impossibility.
In other words, it's not going to happen
.Kind regards,
David
Hi Oliver,
Excellent again.
See my previous post.
Kind regards,
David
Looks like it.
Excellent again
.See my previous post
.Kind regards,
David
The same thing happens when submitting a paper - the moment you have approved the proof, you spot another mistake.
Happy New Year, everyone!
Sorry, your two New Year's wishes are just to difficult to implement
Oops, I meant to write:
"too difficult to implement"
I just can't win at the moment
.You are officially banned from winning the powerball lottery!
I second that motion
.Oops, I meant to write:
"too difficult to implement"
I just can't win at the moment
Rub it in!