Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Hornresp
Hornresp
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th May 2020, 04:05 PM   #10791
Sharkythefrog is offline Sharkythefrog  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
The situation that you are contemplating is really not required.
I donīt know what I am “contemplating”. I realized that the design that I was looking for and know the advantages of didnīt work in the software as-is. Thatīs how it is, and I might (or might not) ending up somewhere else (probably not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
There were a multitude of comparisons between Akabak and its ability to micromanage the flow path and the more simplified versions in Hornresp. It turned out that the differences in the end simulations for simple designs like your enclosure are pretty much negligible.
In this case the differences are definitely not negligible. I am sure Hornresp are doing things at least as good as Akabak and a whole lot more, but my design just didnīt fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
Some times we are so caught up with the little details we try to force a square peg into a round hole.
And it might be so. But the hole is in this case is quite nice. I tried (but failed, with full respect) to get David to carve on the peg so that it did fit. He as the creator has other priorities and who am I to do anything else but being humble and just wish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
Hornresp is really one of the most versatile, accurate simulation programs that I have ever used.
Would never ever think of argue against that. That’s why I stepped in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
I know that many people have validated the simulations. Myself with measurements versus simulations. And I know Bjorn has done much more rigorous validations.
This is once again the reason that I stepped in here. Itīs a serious work done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwmkravchenko View Post
Work with the program. You will be rewarded with a great enclosure if you take time to think within its abilities.
I will surely do that. But not just for this design, as it is already designed to its maximum in MathCad. My aim was that instead of just using the design as-is I was thinking of using this a good start to really going into Hornresp and to the horn principles, “What happens if….” ! Not that I had any expectations to improve the design, but to understand a little bit more than just once again do what someone else had designed for me.

Every ten years or so I will remind David about my two most prioritized whishes:
Prio 1 - Stepped transition in whatever cylindrical/conical design in the Loudspeaker wizard
Prio 2 – Release of the driver/vent position from a segment troat/mouth, to make the work smoother and increase the number usable segment without actually re-build the whole software with more segments

Thanks for all the responses and help this far :-) :-)

Last edited by Sharkythefrog; 28th May 2020 at 04:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2020, 11:20 PM   #10792
mwmkravchenko is offline mwmkravchenko  Canada
Mark Kravchenko
diyAudio Member
 
mwmkravchenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth Canada
Hornresp
[QUOTE=Sharkythefrog;6221961

In this case the differences are definitely not negligible. I am sure Hornresp are doing things at least as good as Akabak and a whole lot more, but my design just didnīt fit.
[/QUOTE]




Generally when this is the case you have made an inaccurate simulation. I have found building dozens of enclosures and simulating well over a thousand that this program will simulate pretty close to measured if you build as you simulated and simulate as you build.


For instance your 180 degree bend in the T-line is not required for an accurate simulation if you take a dimension down the centre of the fold.


Your coupling chamber can be accurately modeled.


Almost everything that your design has is included in the simulation that David posted. The only missing part is the stuffing and perhaps a few tweaks to get everything as you originally designed.


And don't feel to overwhelmed.


I have to design a waveguide again that I did 8 years ago bit lost in a computer crash. And I'm having a great bit of fun matching the simulations to the measurements. But I know the program well enough that when I get as close as I can it will be a great design.
__________________
Mark
www.kravchenko-audio.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2020, 11:31 PM   #10793
Sharkythefrog is offline Sharkythefrog  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sweden, Eskilstuna
The stepped transition S2-S3 can’t be defined together with the conical S3 segment. That’s it. And that makes a defined difference in the measures. David explained that himself, and that it’s not going to change. Can’t be more clear. But I am still happy. Today I have been (and still are 01:29AM) playing with XMachina. Also fun.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2020, 09:16 PM   #10794
papasteack is offline papasteack  France
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Limousin
Hi David,

Can you verify PR mass setting code ? I feel from comparing sim to measurement that mmp is halved in hornresp.

I play with a kind of 6 order bandpass, with PR one side(45-150hz), and two bandpass box the other side (35-60hz). I use a 94g mmp PR (a CSS APR12). Even if i cannot be sure of real moving mass of the PR, it should not be that far away.

I've done several impedance/response measurement on this box while tweaking. Both response, and impedance spike are in measurement exactly as if my PR moving mass were twice as hornresp input.

I used both OD and BPC to sim, and both gives the same issue (there's of course some response difference due to port end correction between both way).

I tryed to tweak (in box and hornresp) everything, port lenght, amount of stuffing in each cavity, remesured volumes. Everything react as in sim, exepted PR moving mass. I even removed 30g from the PR removing the weight tuning system, so that i have 64g moving mass.

Since this box topology have lot of tweaking capabilities with 3 volumes to tweak stuffing, 2 port lenght to play with, 1 PR weight to tweak, it's not a problem on it own. I just compensate with a smaller bandpass volume behind the PR since i can't reduce anymore PR moving mass, and will just have a bit more loose on PR output than expected.
Tweaking right the enclosure, the hole around 75hz on port output (green curve on third picture/red curve in picture 2) is totally removed and response is smooth, both on sim and in real measurements, at different sound levels as expected. I keep those good measurement for the moment, i keep tweaking

Capture 1 is sims showing in red response of PR with twice PR mass / i grey expected total response (PR+port)
Capture 2 is sims showing in red response of port with twice PR mass / i grey expected total response (PR+port)
Capture 3 is measurement with mic in port entrance (green) / at 5 cm from PR (pink)
Capture 4 is maybe the most interesting, the simed impedance with twice PR weight in sim in red is exactly what is measured in black.

**Don't overlook at the damped 25hz spike in this measurement set, i just put too much stuffing in back chamber in this arrangement. It can be seen i green curve of picture 3 too that 40hz spike is too much damped.

(I'll post detail of this sub later when it will be finished)


Thank a lot for this awesome tool,

Damien
Attached Images
File Type: png Capture1.PNG (19.1 KB, 47 views)
File Type: png Capture2.PNG (19.1 KB, 47 views)
File Type: png Capture (1).PNG (41.1 KB, 47 views)
File Type: png Capture3.PNG (66.7 KB, 48 views)

Last edited by papasteack; 29th May 2020 at 09:25 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:12 AM   #10795
David McBean is offline David McBean  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by papasteack View Post
Can you verify PR mass setting code ? I feel from comparing sim to measurement that mmp is halved in hornresp.
Hi Damien,

Many thanks for the feedback, your observations are very interesting indeed!

I have checked the code as requested, and everything appears to be in order. When I first added the passive radiator option I conducted a number of tests to confirm that Hornresp could get the same results as those generated by Jeff Bagby's Woofer Box and Circuit Designer spreadsheet:

Loudspeaker Design Software

I have again checked against the spreadsheet and everything still agrees. If I double the added mass in Hornresp however, the results no longer compare well.

Just to clarify - when you say Mmp, I assume you are referring to the total mass - that is, the passive radiator Mmp parameter value plus any user-specified added mass?

Kind regards,

David
__________________
www.hornresp.net

Last edited by David McBean; Yesterday at 08:30 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM   #10796
papasteack is offline papasteack  France
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Limousin
Yes exactly. I tryed from no added mass (as i need around 90g from sim) to 1200g for burn-in. Cone of PR seems really hard (so heavy ?), but it would be such a variation from factory value. I'll try remove more of their the plastic kind voicecoil former (cone to spider material) to get mass lower again. So from your observation, it must be the effect of PR parameters being really wrong + my added little construction variations from sim.
I keep a bit septical, and will verify with akabak when i'll be motavated, because when i tryed to get same response from hornresp and akabak, i didn't manage PR systems to get same result. But Akabak is such a pain for a "sunday handyman" (does this expression exist in english?) like me.
Thanks a lot David for your expertise !

Last edited by papasteack; Yesterday at 08:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM   #10797
David McBean is offline David McBean  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by papasteack View Post
will verify with akabak when i'll be motavated, because when i tryed to get same response from hornresp and akabak, i didn't manage PR systems to get same result.
That would be great, thanks.

If the AkAbak combined power response results are different, then perhaps there is something wrong with the Hornresp passive radiator model, even though it produces results similar to Jeff Bagby's spreadsheet.
__________________
www.hornresp.net
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:24 PM   #10798
papasteack is offline papasteack  France
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Limousin
Ok i finally removed the last part of plastic weight tuning system of the PR, it weight on it own more than 50g ! It is really thick...so, hornresp was right, as always. It's the PR datasheet that was misleading ! Sorry for having doubt about hornresp !
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG20200530141610.jpg (249.3 KB, 34 views)

Last edited by papasteack; Yesterday at 12:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #10799
mwmkravchenko is offline mwmkravchenko  Canada
Mark Kravchenko
diyAudio Member
 
mwmkravchenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth Canada
Hornresp
Quote:
Originally Posted by David McBean View Post
That would be great, thanks.

If the AkAbak combined power response results are different, then perhaps there is something wrong with the Hornresp passive radiator model, even though it produces results similar to Jeff Bagby's spreadsheet.



Maybe compare it to Unibox. Much more accurate in modeling passive radiators.


I have found the Bagby software to be a strange duck. Also I know other pros who refuse to use it. Same comments from these guys. It has a few flaws that I know for a fact were pointed out, and yet never were addressed.


Unibox has bee one heavy hitter for years that seems to get overlooked for standard box simulations.
__________________
Mark
www.kravchenko-audio.com
  Reply With Quote

Reply


HornrespHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some questions about hornresp brsanko Full Range 7 3rd December 2018 09:04 AM
Hornresp Class FlipC Subwoofers 11 4th June 2016 06:33 AM
Hornresp help / JX150 316a Multi-Way 0 11th February 2004 03:56 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.79%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki