Yes if you intend to run this prog you will need recent version of Excell.Open scource alternatives are gen not compatible.This is not the first time this( vbasic) has caused problems on this site.The general effect is to totally ruin an otherwise usefull development.
As most members are now unable to even play with the software let alone use, evaluate or pass judgment.
Please NO MORE EXCEL ONLY PROJECTS use open source to get WIDESPREAD use of your ideas.!!
As most members are now unable to even play with the software let alone use, evaluate or pass judgment.
Please NO MORE EXCEL ONLY PROJECTS use open source to get WIDESPREAD use of your ideas.!!
I keep asking myself, and right now, what is going on with this world. Since people complain that not everything is available free to the last, without having made a contribution yourself. I can only say that there is absolutely no compulsion to use my software! Your contribution I find totally inappropriate that the project would be completely ruined. Moderate your language! One reason to use Excel VBA was that I personally had a deficit in this regard and I can make good use of it professionally. It is just like that and there is currently no plan to change that. If somebody is willing to convert the source code at a certain time, then we can talk about it and I will make the source code available. But I'm not ready for that right now.
Re:docali:>I was not trying to undermine your efforts.Elsewhere on this site the developer of Hornresp (very respected program) was trying to link his software with some Excel sheets produced at subwoofer diy site. It proved hard to do as hornresp dev only had Excel 2003 and sheets required a Later version.VBA it seems is not backward compat.
I myself have two 21st century versions of Excel and cannot run your sheets.My point is you may be on to something wonderfull here,A great many people who could peer revue your work may not have an appropriate version of Excel. Free software is only of value in the case I am making in that it allows a huge number of people to appreciate your work.
I did NOT mean to offend you Sorry.!!
I myself have two 21st century versions of Excel and cannot run your sheets.My point is you may be on to something wonderfull here,A great many people who could peer revue your work may not have an appropriate version of Excel. Free software is only of value in the case I am making in that it allows a huge number of people to appreciate your work.
I did NOT mean to offend you Sorry.!!
docali, thanks very much for your efforts. I read your blog with interest. I am still trying to wrap my heard around what your designs bring. I love horns/waveguides. Been using them for... a long time, whether pro sound, studio or home. I have tried many profiles.
Right now, a JBL 2384 horn with a JBL 2453h-SL 4" vc 1.5" exit driver. Sounds pretty good, but as with most designs, there are tradeoffs. You can see the directivity response from 630Hz on up here on the 2nd page.
I like constant directivity waveguides, but I don't know if it is the horn profile or 1.5" driver or combo of both, but the top octave really narrows in response, as can be seen in the directivity chart linked above. Also some loss of vertical directivity at 1 kHz.
My question is your horn profile a constant directivity type of device or a device that does not narrow the directivity in the top octave?
Thanks and keep up the great work!
Right now, a JBL 2384 horn with a JBL 2453h-SL 4" vc 1.5" exit driver. Sounds pretty good, but as with most designs, there are tradeoffs. You can see the directivity response from 630Hz on up here on the 2nd page.
I like constant directivity waveguides, but I don't know if it is the horn profile or 1.5" driver or combo of both, but the top octave really narrows in response, as can be seen in the directivity chart linked above. Also some loss of vertical directivity at 1 kHz.
My question is your horn profile a constant directivity type of device or a device that does not narrow the directivity in the top octave?
Thanks and keep up the great work!
I am not sure if I got your question right but if you ask is my modified KWT/SWH a constant directivity horn then I would say: no. But preferring the horizontal plane should fit better as description. The SWH is one of the great classical horns and there are still people out there who like their natural sound character. But as I already described several time that I have some little concerns about round horns
Furthermore, if you look at most of existing horns have their mouth in one plane - why? Ok, it is easy to produce. But with my stereographic projection applied a stretched profile has roughly the same wall lengths around it's whole circumference. A really true Kugelwellentrichter
What my designs bring the question is coming o early. Please be patient and wait for further articles, especially some simulations.
But if you are a big fan of CD horns then my design might not be the right for you as I do not like any diffraction slots in horns.
It seems there is a problem with excel for mac version 16.20. I can not run it (developer tools enabled)
I am very interested in your spreadsheet. I would really like to see a midbass horn with 80hz cutoff, ellipsoid and has rollback. I would like to see it with different throats like 8" throat and a woofer behind it or with a 3/4" compression driver that can play down to 80hz like some we555 replicas.
I have a tractrix 110hz cutoff horn as midbass. If it was ellipsoid I could have gained on horizontal length and the rest of the channels would have been closer.
I am very interested in your spreadsheet. I would really like to see a midbass horn with 80hz cutoff, ellipsoid and has rollback. I would like to see it with different throats like 8" throat and a woofer behind it or with a 3/4" compression driver that can play down to 80hz like some we555 replicas.
I have a tractrix 110hz cutoff horn as midbass. If it was ellipsoid I could have gained on horizontal length and the rest of the channels would have been closer.
Last edited:
Hi!
Your system looks fantastic! I assume that it provides a natural sound character with respect to the horns. The sweet spot might not be as pronounced as in my system but integrating a SHT is a difficult thing...
Sorry, but I cannot help with mac as I do not have any experiences with it. But I have prepared two examples for you as ply-file.
View attachment drba_swh_80_se225_sf138.zip
The have the required 8" throat and a cut-off of 80Hz. So you could get an impression how such horns look like. Only a moderate stretch factor was applied. The second file with file ending pfc has projection applied.
Thank you very much. I have checked with an online ply viewer, it looks intriguing
Sorry, 80Hz gives a huge horn! You are in the cinema league here:
The stretching leads to 100/54 cm diameter. 80 Hz should be completely out of scope. As the SWH has generally a smooth fall-off to lower frequencies one could go a little higher like 120 Hz and use a classical quadratic form as this has a larger surface and only about 108 cm diameter.
View attachment drba_swh_120_se800.zip
SWH has a larger mouth than tractrix. My numbers are radius and yours should be diameter. The 80Hz SWH round has about 180cm diameter.
Last edited:
Hello!
The first of a series of articles which deals with BEM simulations is online. Stay tuned for more articles of this type in the next time.
I have to thank DonVK very much for his support in the last months and his brilliant contributions! Here is his first article:
BEM Simulation for a Freestanding Horn – Sphericalhorns
The first of a series of articles which deals with BEM simulations is online. Stay tuned for more articles of this type in the next time.
I have to thank DonVK very much for his support in the last months and his brilliant contributions! Here is his first article:
BEM Simulation for a Freestanding Horn – Sphericalhorns
I don't like diffraction in horns either, which mine don't have, but mine are CD, so the two things are not mutually exclusive.
And there is a small phrase on your blog that bothers me a great deal and that is "if we assume spherical wavefronts"!!! You assume them? That very incorrect assumption make all that follows pretty weak.
you use a single sentence of my blog to qualify everything else as weak? So, where I come from, it is a little more polite to tell someone that he has produced garbage. Well, I can live with it.
This part of my work has a very strict historical context to the spherical wave horn. If you follow the relevant patents, the whole thing is mainly a construction procedure of the horn. Apart from whether these horns are good or bad, they have just aroused my interest. These horns have made history at least here in Europe. How the true wave fronts develop, that's another story.
Honestly, I think the contribution in its full extent unfair. But right now it's mainly about Don's work.
As one who has some skill at maths, you should recognize that no proof can be any better than the validity of its assumptions. Webster made his mistake in "assuming" an incorrect assumption about the wavefronts. This has led to decades of false expectations of how horns work. It's best not to make assumptions that you cannot prove and in this case, we know for a fact that the assumption is wrong.
I'm glad that you recognize that the patents only reflect actual construction and cannot be taken as peer reviewed accuracy. Build and test them, that's fine and if they work for you then that's fine also, but please be cognizant that the theory has some holes.
It's a bit like the restoration of a vintage car. You have to leave everything as original as possible. The constant radius during the construction process is also questionable. But after all, the process has led to very famous cinema speakers. However, the closed profile also exerts a certain fascination on me.
For me, the path is the goal and I hope that one day I can hear such a horn that is based on my new calculations. But in addition to the Kugelwellenhorn several other horn profiles have been completed and are just waiting to be presented.
True enough if one is trying to duplicate the performance of antiques. But so much more is known today that simply throwing it out because it isn't "original" just does not make sense. It's like trying to compare an old Ferrari with a new one. Doing that on performance grounds is simply a non-issue - there is no comparison.