@ schmeet
Hi, an extremely helpful feature to have, would be the ability to view how Power Compression alters various factors. Including Frequency Response @ various powers, from 1 Watt up to maximum.
Here's hoping
I will certain add it to the list but I have no idea how to go about it....
I don't think the tapped horn feature is giving accurate results. I need to test it further against a couple of other designs but my initial testing doesn't look good when compared to Hornresp and Akabak.
To be clear, my front loaded horn comparison seemed pretty accurate, and everyone that has ever compared this program against other software has nothing but good things to say, and several comparisons of different things have been made. I think the only problem is the tapped horn feature.
To be clear, my front loaded horn comparison seemed pretty accurate, and everyone that has ever compared this program against other software has nothing but good things to say, and several comparisons of different things have been made. I think the only problem is the tapped horn feature.
Yeah, I agree. I haven't looked closely at comparisons but I have been having a think recently about how it is working and I'm not happy that I'm calculating it properly.
I'll have to think a bit harder!
The trouble is that no-one has really written up how to model such things so I'll have to get there myself I guess....
Are you familiar with Akabak? You can just take a quick look at a tapped horn Akabak script and see how they do it.
Here's a quick and simple tapped horn script from here - AkAbak for Dummies
(Great Akabak thread, btw.)
And a picture to show what it means. (Everything is based on nodes in Akabak.)
You can start making a tapped horn in Hornresp and export the work as an Akabak script to continue there. Hornresp is easy to use, Akabak is not. Hornresp doesn't really describe what is going on but if you can read the Akabak script you should be able to follow how it's done in those programs.
EDIT - you can ignore nodes 0, 1 and 2 in that script, that's the electrical side of the driver (there are 2 drivers in this sim) where you would hook up the speaker wires. Nodes 11 and 12 are the front and back of the cone.
Here's a quick and simple tapped horn script from here - AkAbak for Dummies
(Great Akabak thread, btw.)
And a picture to show what it means. (Everything is based on nodes in Akabak.)
You can start making a tapped horn in Hornresp and export the work as an Akabak script to continue there. Hornresp is easy to use, Akabak is not. Hornresp doesn't really describe what is going on but if you can read the Akabak script you should be able to follow how it's done in those programs.
EDIT - you can ignore nodes 0, 1 and 2 in that script, that's the electrical side of the driver (there are 2 drivers in this sim) where you would hook up the speaker wires. Nodes 11 and 12 are the front and back of the cone.
Last edited:
So that's 4π or 2π or π space?
P.S. am almost done with the test MLTL 8" tube enclosure. This is just an experimental box to test theory, tho if works out may give to a friend, got enough materials to build another.
Would stand ~130cm with a line length of 1.93m. Fb sits @ 35Hz. The tuning was intentionally shelved down to accommodate floor gain to extend response. Port is only 3.875" w x 1" high by 3" depth (making that now) < same tuning as using a 3" diameter port 6" long! Max velocity is higher now, 18m/s @21.8. Should cover a 3 octave range cleanly just shy of 200Hz before that third node bites ya in the a*se Next comes the testing... No pics yet, need todo some routing before the rain hits tonight/in the morning and get that glued up /clamped. Perhaps Christmas Eve, Ho Ho HoCan't upload tlp file for some odd reason, changed it to txt even, hmmm
Last edited:
With all programs its always always always 2pi space unless very clearly stated otherwise.
Was wondering if that might be part of the reason for the tilted response, your 43/10.
I'd rate that issue #1 priority.
I don't know what you mean. Try explaining that in different words. Tilted response on what? What is 43/10? What's the #1 priority?
A couple more -
9. (8/10) Auxiliary windows not always on top - It would be nice if the Enclosure window (for example) was not always on top of the main window. I want to be able to click the main window and have it be on top. My screen resolution is limited and I don't have enough room to view both of them side by side so if I want to see the whole main window I have to close the Enclosure window.
10. (8/10) Compare previous - It would be nice to be able to select a graph and hold that current design in memory. Then make changes and while looking at an updated graph, click "Compare previous" to bring up the old graph information as an overlay on top of the new one.
11. (10/10) Check to see why the TL.app and Hornresp results don't agree perfectly - It's ok if different programs calculate things different internally, and that will lead to different results. But it would be nice to know why the results are different and which is more accurate. For example, please review posts 431, 432, 437. Direct link to 431 - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soft...n-line-modelling-software-44.html#post3397872
As noted, the results are almost identical between 80 - 200 hz in this particular example, but below 80 hz the TL.app results are a couple db lower and above 200 hz the TL.app results are a few db higher. IIRC, Akabak reports higher db output at higher frequencies than Hornresp and I'm not sure if Akabak is showing power response or on axis response. I'm not particularly concerned about the higher frequency response anyway, it's the response discrepancy below 80 hz that I'm mostly interested in. I don't think you ever commented on this issue.
First of all, are you aware of this? Second, is TL.app showing on axis response or power response? (MJK's software shows on axis response, Hornresp shows power response.)
This one is so important I would rate it (43/10), but again that would screw up my rating system. Nothing is more important than accuracy.
12. (3/10) Update bar stays green when updates are finished. This is a bit unsettling, I would expect it to clear (turn back to white) when updating is complete. This isn't a really big deal and I realize several people have asked about this already. If you like it the way it is that's fine, just say so and I'll stop asking about it.
More to come later. Or do you want me to stop now? This could go on for quite awhile.
Ok, I get it.
I've already done one comparison, as mentioned and linked to. The results were very very close. This kind of thing with small differences is normal to see between different programs written by different authors that may internally calculate things differently and display completely different things. As an example of displaying completely different things, TL.app shows on axis response and Hornresp shows power response and that's a big reason why the results differ in the higher frequencies. I'm primarily interested in what's going on at lower frequencies though (since I only simulate subwoofers) and that's why I brought this issue up.
There's no way for us to see the math behind the simulators so there's really no way to know exactly what the various simulators are calculating. There's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes and casual users can know a LOT about the math and assumptions being made if you keep up to date with these threads about the programs and read the help files and ask some questions but there's no way for anyone except the programmers to know all the reasons for small differences between programs.
Anyway, the comparison I did was back in March and I've been meaning to do more comparisons, just to make sure. You never know, things can change with updates and this program has been updated a lot since then.
I have no idea how many people are using this software and how many of those people are doing direct comparisons to Hornresp, MJK's worksheets and Akabak. But no one is posting comparisons lately, or even mentioning that they have done recent comparisons, so for my own peace of mind I need to do some.
Earlier this week I did my first tapped horn comparison against Hornresp and unfortunately I found out that the tapped horn feature definitely does not work right. And unfortunately that realization does bring up doubts about whether everything else is still functioning properly. Hornresp has a dedicated group of people that are testing all the features all the time, I don't think this software has such a large audience and as far as I know no one is doing frequent testing. I've had a bunch of people tell me that they won't even try this software because it's just too new and unknown as far as being able to 100 percent trust the results. Hornresp has a long record of excellence and trustworthiness and a lot of people just want to stick with what they know. It would be really nice if more people would start using and testing this software, feedback is important.
So I'm going to do a few tests and compare a few different alignments against Akabak just to make sure everything is still running the way it's supposed to. I was planning to do it anyway, maybe I'll push it up to the top of my to do list.
I've already done one comparison, as mentioned and linked to. The results were very very close. This kind of thing with small differences is normal to see between different programs written by different authors that may internally calculate things differently and display completely different things. As an example of displaying completely different things, TL.app shows on axis response and Hornresp shows power response and that's a big reason why the results differ in the higher frequencies. I'm primarily interested in what's going on at lower frequencies though (since I only simulate subwoofers) and that's why I brought this issue up.
There's no way for us to see the math behind the simulators so there's really no way to know exactly what the various simulators are calculating. There's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes and casual users can know a LOT about the math and assumptions being made if you keep up to date with these threads about the programs and read the help files and ask some questions but there's no way for anyone except the programmers to know all the reasons for small differences between programs.
Anyway, the comparison I did was back in March and I've been meaning to do more comparisons, just to make sure. You never know, things can change with updates and this program has been updated a lot since then.
I have no idea how many people are using this software and how many of those people are doing direct comparisons to Hornresp, MJK's worksheets and Akabak. But no one is posting comparisons lately, or even mentioning that they have done recent comparisons, so for my own peace of mind I need to do some.
Earlier this week I did my first tapped horn comparison against Hornresp and unfortunately I found out that the tapped horn feature definitely does not work right. And unfortunately that realization does bring up doubts about whether everything else is still functioning properly. Hornresp has a dedicated group of people that are testing all the features all the time, I don't think this software has such a large audience and as far as I know no one is doing frequent testing. I've had a bunch of people tell me that they won't even try this software because it's just too new and unknown as far as being able to 100 percent trust the results. Hornresp has a long record of excellence and trustworthiness and a lot of people just want to stick with what they know. It would be really nice if more people would start using and testing this software, feedback is important.
So I'm going to do a few tests and compare a few different alignments against Akabak just to make sure everything is still running the way it's supposed to. I was planning to do it anyway, maybe I'll push it up to the top of my to do list.
Last edited:
I've done some preliminary tests that shows hopeful results eg threw something together that is not correct, modeled it and measured it close enough to know this could work. As I mentioned before this is a test to verify the accuracy. Have two UMIK's now (first one is noisy, but works) If it functions without to much change and I do have some elbow room here, the end result would have 2 similar built into each speaker floor loaded. 2 more of the same drivers in a sealed Q 0.62 section and then an MTM, with the mids (for now unmodified) the same 6.5". All that mess with a MiniDSP crossed to an RT 4001 AMT
The prelim was setup akin to an Orion, but with dual up firing 6.5". AMT was flush mounted to a 8" wide flat baffle with 2" roundovers. Run active was wonderful sounding once tweeter time alignment was tweaked, just lacked normal imaging - just like an Orion. No need for a sub, listened to Floyd til 4:30 am that first night
Looks like the rain fizzled out tonight so I can route out a few things early morning and get them clamped up. Once that's done the two 625va toroids that just arrived need to be rewound. After a year I can finally see light at the end of the tunnel
Merry Christmas
The prelim was setup akin to an Orion, but with dual up firing 6.5". AMT was flush mounted to a 8" wide flat baffle with 2" roundovers. Run active was wonderful sounding once tweeter time alignment was tweaked, just lacked normal imaging - just like an Orion. No need for a sub, listened to Floyd til 4:30 am that first night
Looks like the rain fizzled out tonight so I can route out a few things early morning and get them clamped up. Once that's done the two 625va toroids that just arrived need to be rewound. After a year I can finally see light at the end of the tunnel
Merry Christmas
Could one of you who knows what their doing with HornResp model (or show me how to model) a really simple straight TL so I can compare it. It would also be good to get the same thing modelled in Akabak and MJK Worksheets too.
The simpler it is the better, as a starting point.
The things I think it could be are:
Power Response vs On-Axis Sound Pressure Level
Boundary Reflections
Some assumed delay (from their position) between Port and Driver.
Baffle Diffraction
The simpler it is the better, as a starting point.
The things I think it could be are:
Power Response vs On-Axis Sound Pressure Level
Boundary Reflections
Some assumed delay (from their position) between Port and Driver.
Baffle Diffraction
Happy Holidazes and all that jive!
Simple as it gets, an end loaded TL where pipe cross sectional area [CSA] = driver 'Sd'. DL it into HR's 'import' folder to open as a new record to view, modify.
In the 'SPL response' window, click 'tools', 'combined response' to see the summed response, which allows one to choose any driver, TL path-length difference at the LP.
GM
Simple as it gets, an end loaded TL where pipe cross sectional area [CSA] = driver 'Sd'. DL it into HR's 'import' folder to open as a new record to view, modify.
In the 'SPL response' window, click 'tools', 'combined response' to see the summed response, which allows one to choose any driver, TL path-length difference at the LP.
GM
GM's test tl done in Hornresp, MJK's software, Akabak and TL.app. I removed Rg from the sim because I worried that I might not remember to include it in all the sims but the rest is the same. Let me know if you see any errors asap.
|DATA EXPORTED FROM HORNRESP - RESONANCES NOT MASKED
|COMMENT: Test end loaded TL
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|REQUIRED AKABAK SETTINGS:
|File > Preferences > Physical system constants:
|Sound velocity c = 344m/s
|Medium density rho = 1.205kg/m3
|Sum > Acoustic power:
|Frequency range = 10Hz to 20kHz
|Points = 533
|Input voltage = 2.00V rms
|Integration = 2Pi-sr
|Integration steps = 1 degree ... 1 degree
|Integration method = Cross
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Def_Const |Hornresp Input Parameter Values
{
|Length, area and volume values converted to metres, square metres and cubic metres:
Rg = 0.10e-0; |Amplifier output resistance (ohms)
S1 = 113.00e-4; |Horn segment 1 throat area (sq m)
S2 = 113.00e-4; |Horn segment 1 mouth area (sq m)
L12 = 237.50e-2; |Horn segment 1 axial length (m)
|Parameter Conversions:
Sd = 113.00e-4; |Diaphragm area (sq m)
}
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Network node numbers for this back-loaded horn system:
|0-Voltage-1-Resistance-2
| |
| Radiator(1)-5-Driver-8-Segment-9-Radiator(2)
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Def_Driver 'Driver'
Sd=113.00cm2
Bl=7.92Tm
Cms=3.79E-04m/N
Rms=3.60Ns/m
fs=53.00Hz |Mmd = 23.10g not recognised by AkAbak, fs calculated and used instead
Le=0.60mH
Re=3.40ohm
ExpoLe=1
System 'System'
Resistor 'Amplifier Rg'
Node=1=2
R={Rg}
Driver Def='Driver''Driver'
Node=2=0=5=8
Radiator 'Diaphragm'
Node=5
SD={Sd}
Label=1
Duct 'Horn segment 1'
Node=8=9
SD={S1}
Len={L12}
Visc=0
Radiator 'Horn mouth'
Node=9
SD={S2}
Label=2
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
|DATA EXPORTED FROM HORNRESP - RESONANCES NOT MASKED
|COMMENT: Test end loaded TL
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|REQUIRED AKABAK SETTINGS:
|File > Preferences > Physical system constants:
|Sound velocity c = 344m/s
|Medium density rho = 1.205kg/m3
|Sum > Acoustic power:
|Frequency range = 10Hz to 20kHz
|Points = 533
|Input voltage = 2.00V rms
|Integration = 2Pi-sr
|Integration steps = 1 degree ... 1 degree
|Integration method = Cross
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Def_Const |Hornresp Input Parameter Values
{
|Length, area and volume values converted to metres, square metres and cubic metres:
Rg = 0.10e-0; |Amplifier output resistance (ohms)
S1 = 113.00e-4; |Horn segment 1 throat area (sq m)
S2 = 113.00e-4; |Horn segment 1 mouth area (sq m)
L12 = 237.50e-2; |Horn segment 1 axial length (m)
|Parameter Conversions:
Sd = 113.00e-4; |Diaphragm area (sq m)
}
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Network node numbers for this back-loaded horn system:
|0-Voltage-1-Resistance-2
| |
| Radiator(1)-5-Driver-8-Segment-9-Radiator(2)
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Def_Driver 'Driver'
Sd=113.00cm2
Bl=7.92Tm
Cms=3.79E-04m/N
Rms=3.60Ns/m
fs=53.00Hz |Mmd = 23.10g not recognised by AkAbak, fs calculated and used instead
Le=0.60mH
Re=3.40ohm
ExpoLe=1
System 'System'
Resistor 'Amplifier Rg'
Node=1=2
R={Rg}
Driver Def='Driver''Driver'
Node=2=0=5=8
Radiator 'Diaphragm'
Node=5
SD={Sd}
Label=1
Duct 'Horn segment 1'
Node=8=9
SD={S1}
Len={L12}
Visc=0
Radiator 'Horn mouth'
Node=9
SD={S2}
Label=2
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I was so worried about the stupid Rg (I was worried I'd forget to add it to MJK and TL.app) I took it out of the Hornresp, MJK and TL.app models but I forgot to remove it from the Akabak sim. Not that it makes much difference. Here's the Akabak sim without any Rg, to match all the others. Now none of them have any Rg.
Check my work, guys. I make mistakes sometimes.
Check my work, guys. I make mistakes sometimes.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
