If you think the Smith DSH (Distributed Source Horn) exponential expansion diffraction horn "look like a parabolic", you obviously can not tell the difference between those two horn types.
If the DSH exponential sectors were replaced with straight sheets of plywood, then it would be parabolic.
And using "PAR" rather than "EXP" would then be correct for it's simulation.
In that case, you would be wrong!
Bob Smith himself considers it to be an exponential horn in his article published in the January 1951 edition of Audio Engineering:
"Fundamentally the design considerations are the same as those for any exponential horn - i.e, the mouth area must be large enough to prevent reflection at the lowest frequency for which the horn is intended to be used and the rate of taper must be chosen to provide a satisfactory low-frequency cut-off."
For the last time - an acoustic horn is NOT defined by what the "enclosure" may or may not look like, it is defined by how the cross-sectional area of the horn expands with axial length.
Your argument is not even consistent - on one hand you say that a conical horn must look like a physical cone or pyramid, but on the other hand it is okay for a parabolic horn to look nothing like a parabola. In the case of the parabolic horn you are in fact agreeing that it is the linear area expansion rate that defines it.
This is my last post on the matter. If you wish to continue discussing the issue with others, it would be appreciated if you could please do so on another thread.
So, the last four or five pages or so of this thread are just argumentative discussion over the suggestion that Hornresp should default to assuming PAR segments unless specified otherwise by the user? Wow ...
No. It's about modeling a pyramidal enclosure and then building a 2 parallel sided enclosure.
Now, HR defaulting to PAR instead of CON could help with the learning process. I'm willing to bet most 1st time users see the default CON segment and THINK it's OK to model all their 2 parallel sided enclosures that way.
CON should tell you if your enclosure will not look cone shaped internally (since folks like to build enclosures with wasted space), then don't use it.
Sometimes, things are simple as 1+1 = 3...🤣😂
For those people that don't get it,
1, +, and 1 are 3 individual items, words, spaces, etc
Shoot, maybe CON is OK since the 3 word also means a form of deception...thinking a 2 parallel sided enclosure will perform like pyramidal enclosure model is a falsehood.
A parabolic ENCLOSURE can have ANY flare rate as long as 2 sides run parallel to each other.
A U has 2 parallel sides.
On an aeronautical side note...
This is why we SUPPOSEDLY have FedEx.
In 1962, Fredrick Smith entered Yale University for pursuing ecomics. According to some sources, he wrote a paper for an economics class, outlining overnight delivery service, on which he received a “C”.
He proved his professor (probably with a PhD) wrong with the creation of FedEx.
This is why we SUPPOSEDLY have FedEx.
In 1962, Fredrick Smith entered Yale University for pursuing ecomics. According to some sources, he wrote a paper for an economics class, outlining overnight delivery service, on which he received a “C”.
He proved his professor (probably with a PhD) wrong with the creation of FedEx.