Thanks for the latest install help, but too preoccupied with more pressing issues ATM plus it's begun acting a bit weird WRT to the keyboard even though I keep it very clean, vacuumed, etc.. 
kbd = keyboard? Took me awhile; not called 'old n' slow' for nothing. Anyway, really do need a new(er) computer and as fate would have it, a neighbor waved $1000 in my face today to buy an old wrecked motorcycle I was going to scrap for $350, so hope it's enough to get something decent.
Anyway, really do need a new(er) computer and as fate would have it, a neighbor waved $1000 in my face today to buy an old wrecked motorcycle I was going to scrap for $350, so hope it's enough to get something decent.I'm afraid it is not possible. LN19S400 specs seem nonconforming and off. There is LN19S450. Still not best driver to choose for such task. Well, enough OT. Make a new thread probably.
Anyways, I don't want to put more load on ms McBean, yet...
When working woth speaker output and comparing two sims to each other, the work seems to be very tedious. Back and forth multiple times, resimulating, because the data of the Tools menu gets overwritten.
Especially talking about driver power. Is it not possible to put it into "Windiw menu", so "compare previous" is ppssible to apply on driver power, and is possible to switch between it and other graphs seamlessly? Many thanks.
To GM:
Do you have a decent monitor ? 32" so you don't strain what is left of your eyes.
Newegg.com and tigerdirect.com have nice systems you can customize.
If you want to invest 1000 don't get anything less than a gen 11 Intel CPU.
If you like AMD we can look at options also.
Hey at least 16gb Ram and a 512gb SSD plus a backup mechanical drive.
Do you do any 3D and video editing ...if no the onboard graphics will suffice .. if yes you will need some GPU that fits within the 1000 budget.
Let me know what are your performance expectations that you want/need
I can help throwing some hardware configs in the table.
M.
Do you have a decent monitor ? 32" so you don't strain what is left of your eyes.
Newegg.com and tigerdirect.com have nice systems you can customize.
If you want to invest 1000 don't get anything less than a gen 11 Intel CPU.
If you like AMD we can look at options also.
Hey at least 16gb Ram and a 512gb SSD plus a backup mechanical drive.
Do you do any 3D and video editing ...if no the onboard graphics will suffice .. if yes you will need some GPU that fits within the 1000 budget.
Let me know what are your performance expectations that you want/need
I can help throwing some hardware configs in the table.
M.
It's ~15" diagonal LT. I have an ancient Dell screen I assume I can plug into this LT from my Win 2k? desktop system days that's a lot bigger, but doesn't have near as high a resolution IIRC.
Well, don't want to spend that much, just assumed it would be pretty high compared to the $580 I paid for this HP LT in Jan. 2016.
No, do nothing special, just paying bills, forums, family, email, etc., and the associated pictures, though would like to reinstall all my old Excel, Word, etc., spreadsheets, docs/whatever.
Well, don't want to spend that much, just assumed it would be pretty high compared to the $580 I paid for this HP LT in Jan. 2016.
No, do nothing special, just paying bills, forums, family, email, etc., and the associated pictures, though would like to reinstall all my old Excel, Word, etc., spreadsheets, docs/whatever.
Last edited:
The Shearer system! 🙂 Wouldn't that be a front-loaded horn? With back-loaded horn I think of direct radiating cone loaded on the back by a horn, like typical Lowther enclosures.
I don't know if the Shearer system was reactance annulled, though, never seen it mentioned, but reactance annulling was described by Thuras in the patent for the Fletcher system bass horn, but IIRC it was not mentioned in the claims.
The grille on the back is apparently to "prevent damage to the speaker elements", I don't know if there was some cloth on the inside making it a resistive vent?
The Shearer bass horn was designed by Olson and Volkmann, btw. I found the original sketches in the Hagley collection, where they have archived Olson's stuff from RCA.
Don't exceed 4:1 if the horn system has a cone type driver. The actual ratio used will depend on what you are trying to achieve with your design.
See the screenprints below for a possible alternative design.
Vtc = Effective air volume between the driver diaphragm and the front plane of the driver, determined using the Driver Front Volume tool.
(For the example below the driver front volume is assumed to be 10000 cm3, meaning that the total for the two drivers is 20000 cm3).
Atc = Sd * 2 drivers = 1680 * 2 = 3360 cm2
Last edited:
Use Compare Captured rather than Compare Previous. See the Help File for details.
Use Compare Captured rather than Compare Previous.
Select the Driver Power output option in the Loudspeaker Wizard and Store / Recall up to four different sets of results.
The existing functionality is not going to change.
Thank you. Something was solved, something not so. One can work around about anything, that's for sure.
Regarding compression ratios. I know of one design by James Bell what used a modest 8 inch woofer from MCM (remember MCM) that was an 8:1 compression ratio. I have literally broken a very low frequency horn subwoofer with a 12 inch. It had basically a 4:1 compression ratio. The amount of pressure a driver diaphragm can survive is directly related to the diaphragm construction. There are safe rules of thumb. But we are not idiots I hope! There are drivers that will withstand more radical compression ratios. And there are situations that really do benefit from this. The aluminium cones are robust. Many of the cones that are curvilinear are also quite tough.
We need not be lemmings like the rest of the audio engineering world.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
The idea in the lemming video being that everyone does it, so we will do it! Whyyyyyyyy??? Experiment!
We need not be lemmings like the rest of the audio engineering world.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
The idea in the lemming video being that everyone does it, so we will do it! Whyyyyyyyy??? Experiment!
Don't have to remember, they are still around.
Unless we are talking about two different brands with exactly the same name.
Of course you're technically right, but we know that normally the rear chamber will be a relatively tiny sealed one whereas due to the horn design criteria of the times dictated an open rear chamber, so just personally choose to refer to them as back loaded just to differentiate them.
Very long story short re any damping; I've heard/read conflicting info, so guess it depended on the needs of the intended app.
Re reactance annulled and another long story short; in my 'adventures' in horn design I was told by a 'crusty' old EE that was apparently very well versed in all things re speaker/horn system design that the pioneer's open back compression chamber's compression horn design was proof of being reactance annulled, but left it to me to figure out what this meant and why it was, so with no higher math skills it would remain a mystery to me for another four years till a chance meeting with Marshall Leach at Ga. Tech ....(TBC)
The power response for the alternative design is shown below.
The null at 358 Hz is due to the driver offset of 24 cm being one quarter wavelength long at that frequency.
At 358 Hz:
Wavelength = 34400 / 358 = 96 cm
Quarter wavelength = 96 / 4 = 24 cm
Hey there y'all folks,
It's been a long time since last time I posted in this forum.
Meanwhile I've been experimenting quite a bit with MLTLs.
Of course I've been modeling quite a few MLTLs configurations in hornresp.
And there is one point that I need to check with David McBean - and eventually with anyone else here that would like to share their own inputs :
1) If I model an MLTL with an offset port - typically a round port in the shape of a tube, there is a port end correction to be applied - for a typicall such port that end correction is generally 0.732 - and indeed hornresp applies an port-end correction, and it is stated very clearly and precisely how much correction is applied. And so the lenght of port (Lpt) that is given in hornrest takes this into account in its calculation and therefore the given Lpt in Hornrest is the exact physical length that the port should have when assembling the cabinet so that the response can match what was modelled in Hornresp, right ?
2) Now if I model an MLTL just using the "Mass Loaded" configuration (using the input wizard for example) then I get - in the hornresp-generated box diagram - a box with a port at it's very end... Ok BUT what is assumed here, as a port/vent type ?
I get the impression that it is a neutral "K" number - say like a 1, and that it is then to each one of us to apply the correct port end correction "K" number depending on the type of port each one want to do - because K for a round port is 0.732, but K for a slot port with three sides of the port being the internal faces of the cabinet is 2.227...and that generally means quite a difference in the actual physical length of the port.
So is my assumption correct, or not ?
See the attached picture as an example : this model uses the Mass Loading type in hornresp.
If I want this port to be a round port (yeah ok, sticking out or plugged in the end of the cabinet, but here just for the sake of the example !) do I need to apply a 0.732 end correction to the given 30.1 cm length
Now if I want to do a slot port do I need to apply like a 2.227 end correction to the given 30.1 cm ? Or Not ?
Thanks a lot for your response, David, and all of you other good folks out there.
I wish to all of you a great summer.
It's been a long time since last time I posted in this forum.
Meanwhile I've been experimenting quite a bit with MLTLs.
Of course I've been modeling quite a few MLTLs configurations in hornresp.
And there is one point that I need to check with David McBean - and eventually with anyone else here that would like to share their own inputs :
1) If I model an MLTL with an offset port - typically a round port in the shape of a tube, there is a port end correction to be applied - for a typicall such port that end correction is generally 0.732 - and indeed hornresp applies an port-end correction, and it is stated very clearly and precisely how much correction is applied. And so the lenght of port (Lpt) that is given in hornrest takes this into account in its calculation and therefore the given Lpt in Hornrest is the exact physical length that the port should have when assembling the cabinet so that the response can match what was modelled in Hornresp, right ?
2) Now if I model an MLTL just using the "Mass Loaded" configuration (using the input wizard for example) then I get - in the hornresp-generated box diagram - a box with a port at it's very end... Ok BUT what is assumed here, as a port/vent type ?
I get the impression that it is a neutral "K" number - say like a 1, and that it is then to each one of us to apply the correct port end correction "K" number depending on the type of port each one want to do - because K for a round port is 0.732, but K for a slot port with three sides of the port being the internal faces of the cabinet is 2.227...and that generally means quite a difference in the actual physical length of the port.
So is my assumption correct, or not ?
See the attached picture as an example : this model uses the Mass Loading type in hornresp.
If I want this port to be a round port (yeah ok, sticking out or plugged in the end of the cabinet, but here just for the sake of the example !) do I need to apply a 0.732 end correction to the given 30.1 cm length
Now if I want to do a slot port do I need to apply like a 2.227 end correction to the given 30.1 cm ? Or Not ?
Thanks a lot for your response, David, and all of you other good folks out there.
I wish to all of you a great summer.
Attachments
+1
Which ones? All the ones I've been exposed between the early pioneer's up to ~ 2000 RS, etc., quality couldn't handle its high power rating with any CR > ~ 1:1.
I wonder too. RCF bass drivers are quite often curvilinear, and it goes against common sense.