I checked the code and couldn't find any obvious errors so I ran my closed-box test example again, and it worked perfectly this time! I have no idea why it did not work correctly on the first occasion. The attachment compares a single speaker (grey trace) to 2 speakers connected in parallel (black trace).
USRFobiwan,
Could you please post the design that gives you no change, and I will see if I can get the same result as you.
Others,
Could you please try using the Multiple Speakers tool and report back if you experience any problems.
Attachments
The 6 dB increase at low frequencies and 3 dB increase at high frequencies as shown in the attachment, is what I would expect to see theoretically.
For two speakers connected in series I would expect no difference at low frequencies and a 3 dB reduction at high frequencies.
OK, going to take the deep dive and fireup hornresp this weekend
You copuld also approximate this in a four step conical horn. It will give you decently close results. And you could do that in one piece. THe only caveat there would be that the drive for such a tall narrow horn would be at the center.
Multiple horns is probably the best way to go. Are you driving this with a ribbon or electrostatic planar?
but no gold medal until all the bugs are fixed...
Speaking of bugs........ in current version, when using the max SPL, change it, then change it back by clearing the input, it closes showing 1 W now and on reopening, i.e. the saved power is no more, just a 'saved' 1 W, so re input it/F9 to save and this cycle begins anew and neither re-booting HR nor the laptop corrected it.
David,
I was trying to replicate multiple-speaker SPL bug again and it showed correct SPL after opening the record again. I could not replicate it anymore.
Must have been a glitch or some weird combination with filter option and multi-speaker setting and going back and forth with those panels.
I was trying to replicate multiple-speaker SPL bug again and it showed correct SPL after opening the record again. I could not replicate it anymore.
Must have been a glitch or some weird combination with filter option and multi-speaker setting and going back and forth with those panels.
Hi USRFobiwan,
Thanks for getting back to me. I was certain that I had seen the same result as you on my first test run, and it has been driving me crazy not being able to repeat it a second time around
.After further extensive testing I have now stumbled across a sequence of events that does indeed cause the problem. Is there any chance that you may have changed the solid radiation angle immediately prior to calculating results?
If so, then mystery solved. It is very interesting that the problem is due to a bug in Visual Basic itself, and not of my doing. I have managed to come up with a "work-around" that fixes things however - it will be in the next update.
Kind regards,
David
Ok... I think I found the SPL multi-speaker error. It doesn't work if you set the input (Eg) voltage to any thing other or in other words change the input wattage.
I tried with old and new records and all do the same. In basic loaded format with default input voltage it applies spl changes on multiple speaker configs. Once you go in edit and change voltage, recalc and apply multiple speakers its does nothing.
I tried with old and new records and all do the same. In basic loaded format with default input voltage it applies spl changes on multiple speaker configs. Once you go in edit and change voltage, recalc and apply multiple speakers its does nothing.
Excellent, thank you. The good news is that the "work-around" for the Ang change problem also seems to fix the Eg change problem. I will investigate further to try to work out why this should be so.
compared to most other peaces of software, honresp is one of the most bug-free and stable tool around. David is constantly fixing bugs much faster than the average time needed to get rid of them. I see no need to split up two trains - this "system" has been working very well for a very long time now.
If you encounter any bugs, please report them - until they are fixed, please be patient or drink a beer (or do both) - and feel free to play around with the vast amount of bug free features in hornresp
If you encounter any bugs, please report them - until they are fixed, please be patient or drink a beer (or do both) - and feel free to play around with the vast amount of bug free features in hornresp
So, do you have a list of which features in the current build are bug free?
How does one know whether a bug is affecting older features that were hitherto bug free? It is easy for experienced users to spot behaviour that is due to a bug, but novices like me will tend to blame weird behaviour on their design.
How does one know whether a bug is affecting older features that were hitherto bug free? It is easy for experienced users to spot behaviour that is due to a bug, but novices like me will tend to blame weird behaviour on their design.
I feel a bit of responsibility to reaffirm Sabbelbacke's statement. It has been my experience that unless a specific bug is currently topical in this thread inside say 1.5wks, you may safely proceed. My only half-jesting addition: It is only when your design works perfectly while being small that concern with software function would be in order IMO. If a review/confirmation of others is still desired, start a "please look at my Hornresp design" thread in the appropriate subforum. You may receive unsolicited design input, but you will surely receive validation of the results from those with much experience.
Last edited:
Hi SamAnytime,
Most of the bugs now being found are associated with the operation of the user interface - the simulation models themselves are all working correctly as far as I know. Hornresp has evolved into an extremely complex piece of software internally, and it is very difficult to take all possibilities into account up front, and not to overlook something, when new features are added.
As Sabbelbacke says, if you do encounter a problem, please report it and I will make every effort to fix it in a timely manner. Some of the recent bugs detected have been present since Day One, meaning that there is really no "stable" reference version as such.
In most cases the calculated results are correct, but if for some reason they are not, it is usually pretty obvious to the user that something is wrong.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Bw,
I get the result shown in the attachment. Please try updating to the latest release (5310-210718), and let me know if there is still a problem after doing so.
Kind regards,
David
Attachments
Geez, I haven't REALLY played with HR since the paraflex functions have been implemented. 8 freakin' SEGMENTS